Archives

Archive 1

Kudos on another job well done! I completed the peer review for this article. If you have any questions, just let me know. Take care,  Gongshow ^Talk 19:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gongshow! I'll put the tips to good use in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. As one of my favorite 60s/70s bands, it's great to see these solid Kinks articles.  Gongshow ^Talk 20:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you like them. Frankly, the articles for their albums were (and still are), well, a mess. I've been trying very hard to improve them one by one, as I'd like more people to discover them and learn about them through informative and well-built articles (which is what I've been striving for, although I certainly haven't achieved it yet). I think my ultimate goal is to get every album from Kinks to Everybody's In Show-biz to GA status. Thank you for aiding me with it! I appreciate it. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Informative and well-built articles"...yep, that's definitely a true description of the work you're doing. Good luck with the GA's, and thank you for the barnstar! Very unexpected and appreciated!  Gongshow ^Talk 05:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thank you for the kind words! As to the barnstar... I think you certainly deserve it, with all the hard work you've put into those PRs. P.S., congrats on getting Laugh, Laugh to GA... I watched it through its nomination, and I'm glad to see that it all went quickly and smoothly. Thanks once again for the peer review! - I.M.S. (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		I award you this Music Barnstar for your amazing efforts in kronikling The Kinks. "You Really Got Me" impressed, as your work must often take "All Day and All of the Night", so congrats to "A Well Respected Man".  Gongshow Talk 05:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm quite honored (and pleasantly surprised!). To quote Gongshow, "Very unexpected and appreciated!" I hope you have a nice day/night. - I.M.S. (talk)

Hey, just to let you know that I'll be tackling the Lola review - I left a suggestion on the review page - I should have a more formal review up in the next few days.--Scott Free (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time! I'm very busy right now, but I'll be able to attend to all the issues raised in an hour or so. Many thanks, - I.M.S. (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This to inform that LvsPM&tMGRpt1 has been awarded GA status. Congrats, congrats and keep up the good work! --Scott Free (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it! - I.M.S. (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I.M.S. I posted a response at Talk:Great White Wonder. Allreet (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Allreet! I'm currently in the process of writing a reply - it might take a few minutes, however. Thank you for telling me. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for editing the article Vancouver. I reverted one of your edits on good faith because at WP:Image they decided that for articles the standard posting for images would be thumb, and then allow users to adjust in their own user settings how big the resolution they want it. This was proposed to make a standard image resolution on Wikipedia so we wouldn't have a great variety in image sizes, and then of course everyone runs their computer displays at different resolutions. One range for image resolutions, and one setting for Wikipedia was the idea. Whether this has happened or not remains in question, but they're working on it. Best of luck, Mkdw^talk 20:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree with you. Many thanks for alerting me to the issue - I appreciate it! - I.M.S. (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, I just wanted to say thanks for your work over at WP:Latin. I think that you kick-started us into action and designed the Barnstar, so I've just taken decided to reward you with the barnstar.

On a different matter, I just wanted to say that you seem to be doing very well for yourself on wikipedia, so well done, 95jb14 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar and kind words, 95jb14! I must admit that I've been absent from the Latin field for the past few weeks, but I'd like to jump back in soon. Would you like some help getting Latin back up to Good Article? I'd be happy to collaborate on it. Thanks once again! - I.M.S. (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also haven't been too active in the last few weeks but the Article could do with some help, I've just today copied it across to a sandbox in my userspace, so I plan to see what I can do, It would be best if the article was mostly rewritten, If you think you want to do the same then iit is fine by me and at the end we can combine our efforts. 95jb14 (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, IMS, I thought I'd better let you know that a discussion has been opened on the WikiProject Councils talk page discussing the use of templates in WikiProject Proposals, yours (proposal for Wp:The Kinks) was given as an example. I thought you should know in case you wanted to get involved in the discussion. It doesn't really concern me, but I thought it was right to let you know. 95jb14 (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks very much for alerting me, 95jb14. I was not aware of the discussion, and I'll definitely keep an eye on it to see how it develops. Many thanks! - I.M.S. (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. SilkTork *^YES! 19:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked, and Arthur gets an average of 5,500 readers each month. I think it's good when articles that people want to read are improved. SilkTork *^YES! 19:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review and GA passing. Do you really think that FA is possible down the road? - I.M.S. (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. - I.M.S. (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stones images are out--one is obviously recent; the other is from a UK-based label. Remember, U.S. publication, pre-1978. The Grateful Dead and The Who images look possible, if you can somehow firmly establish that they are pre-1978 images. Can you marshal evidence in either case to support such a claim? (Remember, Moon died in September 1978 and was active in The Who up until his death.) Regards, DocKino (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare The Who's still with this image from here, it appears to be from at least the same session or day. There's no solid evidence, so it's useless to point out that they're "wearing the same clothing". Even then it doesn't prove the date of publication. I'm still twiddling my thumbs and thinking. I'll get back to you if I can discover something fruitful. Would it be worth contacting someone with profound and definitive knowledge on the subject? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IMS, I have withdrawn from The Kinks as my efforts to work on the article have been reverted three times without discussion - a situation I am not comfortable with, and one that I find quite unusual while doing a GA review. It is quite likely that a different reviewer will be able to work more harmoniously with the other editors, so I suggest that you tidy up the Personnel section (or wait until the editor working on it completes it - you may need to discuss the matter with that person directly), and go through the article yourself carefully, making sure the prose flows (put short sentences together in longer sentences), and that there are no statements which might be seen to be personal opinion. The article is very close to GA standards, and shouldn't take much to pass. Good luck. SilkTork *^YES! 20:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern and understand your reasons for withdrawal (however, couldn't it have been put on hold until the editing dies down?). I'm going to go ahead and restore the old personnel table (if MadHatter disagrees, hopefully we can discuss it), and, if it's alright with you, renominate it. I also feel that it reaches (if not exceeds) the standards, and would most certainly pass without too much effort. Thanks for your review. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your plan for the article's good one. It's coming along--major improvements since the last FA in the images, sourcing, et cetera. If I have some time in the next week or so, I'll pitch in on the "Legacy" section. Regards, DocKino (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help! - I.M.S. (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely --Scieberking (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit to Rubber Soul yesterday that I reverted just now. You changed cited material and added new information that was not supported by the existing source. I believe what you wrote is correct, but the page should not assert that Rolling Stone was the source of information that is not present in the cited RS article. If you have a source for the raga rock comment, the specific songs you mentioned, etc., please add a ref for it. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - it was rather stupid of me not to include a proper source. If it's alright with you, I will add the information back using Jonathan Bellman's book:

• Bellman, Jonathan (1998). The Exotic in Western Music. Lebanon, NH: UPNE. ISBN 1555533191.

- I.M.S. (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got easy access to that book, but if it supports your claims, then go right ahead and cite it. I think a combination Bellman and RS would be good unless the Bellman book supports everything in that part of the article. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--go for it! DocKino (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Arthur and telling me that rule - I wasn't aware of it. I'll make sure to follow it from now on. Regards, - I.M.S. (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to start using  Question: and Y in order to be able follow better. If you could do the same, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific work locating these! And great job, as well, explaining the public domain status of the 1969 image on its Commons file page. I was a little concerned about the visual quality of the image, so I downloaded it, spruced it up a bit on my computer with iPhoto, and re-uploaded, but my changes didn't take. I'm afraid I'm not terribly adept technically. You did a nice job retouching the infobox image. This is a different sort of job, but do you think it's possible to improve the '69 image--basically to (a) make it somewhat less washed out and (b) reduce the effect of that classic newspaper cross-hatching effect on their faces? All the best, DocKino (talk) 06:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now my alterations do seem to have taken. See what you think. DocKino (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DocKino, and thanks for the kind words! I've experienced the same problems when uploading images - see the history of your Kinks playbill - I believe it's a problem with the browser's cache. I think your changes to the images have greatly improved it - I fiddled around with some contrast and sharpness adjustment in my image editor, but never got around to uploading the finished product. Your version looks much better.

Do you think that the article is ready for FAC? I see you've done some copyediting, and the peer review is now complete - is it time? Many thanks, - I.M.S. (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's come quite a ways since the last FAC. I say...give it a shot. Best, DocKino (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the portal placement ... your edit was good, thanks. Nice job on the article. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the time you took on the Gillian Welch article. The article benefited a lot from your review, and I learned a lot that I will apply in future editing. See you around! --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that my review helped. Good luck at PR and eventually FAC! - I.M.S. (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I realize you may no longer be watchlisting the Elvis Presley FAC, but I wonder if you are around at the moment and could comment on something. The article has five supporting reviews, but a question has arisen from the delegates about article size. The delegates are requesting that reviewers give their opinion on this aspect. Your input would be appreciated. PL290 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that the intro shouldn't include much mention of the bandmembers as it is too much for the article itself. Otherwise I think I will list on the personnel section only the original bandmembers.

Regards I.M.S.: The Mad Hatter (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the article to the "Live albums" category, you may or may not want to add more categories. Belteshazzar293 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the category! I'll get around to adding more in a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your collaborative work in getting Like a Rolling Stone to Featured Article status, you deserve this barnstar. Rlendog (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. Many thanks for Barnstar. Well done, everybody! Onwards and upwards. [[1]] Mick gold (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me, too!! Wow, a real live barnstar. I've always been a little bit hoping I'd get one some day. :-) Thanks to everyone for the great teamwork. Moisejp (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone! I'm so glad it worked out alright - for a while I thought no one would !vote. I'll comment on the project talk page shortly... - I.M.S. (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations IMS, nice to see collaboration alive and well on wiki. One small complaint - I havn't been able to get the damn song out of my head since I read the article last week (was ok for a day or two, driving me nuts by now!) Ceoil ^sláinte 15:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm sorry to hear that the article is annoying you. I hope it won't last for much longer. Thanks very much for your contributions and comments on the FAC page - they helped! - I.M.S. (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And congrats on the Disasters of War FA. One of my favorite works (I've always been struck by how such simplistic etchings can convey such emotion...), and an excellent article to boot. Good work! You're certainly adding a little to the preservation of teamwork here as well. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On February 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Live at Kelvin Hall, 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.

Congrats! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - I.M.S. (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 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. Please let the project know here. Regards

No, I haven't posted it yet, any suggestions, improvements etc. ? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. How would this look (a few tweaks):

==WikiProject Bob Dylan Newsletter==

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,

-- I.M.S. (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start posting you draft straight away. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, after nearly 4 years and 40,000 edits (all minor admittedly) I get a Barnstar. All the category work is because of the one I lost Songs recorded by Bob Dylan! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific job bringing The Kinks to Featured Article status. It's definitely something to point to as evidence that, over time, Wikipedia gets better and better. Well done. DocKino (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DocKino! It was a pleasure working with you; I hope the opportunity arises for me to do so again soon. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to say the same. I'm sorry I couldn't participate in the review due to my contributions, but I'm glad to see that it has made it to featured article. Well done! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shirik—I really appreciate the work you put into the page back in December; it helped the article quite a bit. - I.M.S. (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to take a look at it again, but it will take me several days. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the article and will be glad to look at it again (also like the album very much), but am just busy in real life and trying to get something done here on deadline. Sorry for the delay, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made some copyedits and posted some comments on the article's talk page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the barnstar and your kind words. I am usually not familiar with albums I review the articles for, so this was a special pleasure. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a music editor, but it seems pretty much ready for FAC to me. I am sure there are tweaks it will need (FAC is good for finding such things), but it seems ready to me. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I will take a look at it again tomorrow then weigh in on the FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I moved Sitting In The Midday Sun, which you created yesterday, to Sitting in the Midday Sun as per WP:ALBUMCAPS. I've also had a look at your DYK nom here and I've raised a few queries there. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I've responded at DYK. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the barnstar, and thanks of course for your fantastic work on Kinks-related articles! Ælfgar (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too! - I.M.S. (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sitting in the Midday Sun, 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) 18:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Great work on cleaning up the lead btw. I'm just wondering if it should be appropriate to link the A&R recording studios mentioned in the article to Artists and repertoire. I'm not absolutely certain that they're the same thing, but it seems that way. Any thoughts? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Kitchen Roll; I'm glad to hear you found my edit satisfactory. I think you've been doing some great work over at HBATSC, and it should do well at GAN. Regarding your question, I don't see any reason to include a link from A&R studios to Artists and repertoire at the moment—the two don't appear to be related. However, are you sure the album wasn't recorded at Warner Bros.' A&R studios—this would make more sense. I see the article for A&R says the following: The A&R division oversees the recording process. This includes helping the artist to find the right record producer, scheduling time in a recording studio and advising the artist on all aspects of making a high quality recording. - I.M.S. (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're correct there and, because Morrison was signed to Waners, it is likely to be their A&R studios - thanks! It seems someone has picked up the GA review so I think I'd better get to that sharpish. You can help out if you so wish, which would be much appreciated. Cheers Kitchen roll (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S.! I just wanted to say well done on all your good work on the Gram Parsons article lately - I've been meaning to get around to doing some work on this article for a long time myself. Unfortunately, I'm kinda tied up with several other big articles that I've resolved to sort out at the moment. However, I can probably help out with providing reliable inline refs for the GP article if you would like me to. If this would be helpful, let me know whether or not you want refs in the lead and the main body of the article. Myself, I like refs in both because most folks only read the lead and it stops people challenging stuff if they can see where it’s sourced from I feel. Anyway, keep up the good work! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Kohoutek, and thanks for the kind words! I would truly appreciate any kind of help you have to offer (when you have an opportunity), as I'm very busy at the moment, too. I'm looking to get some books on GP - could you recommend a good one? Many thanks, - I.M.S. (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely NOT the Polly Parsons' one (Grievous Angel: An Intimate Biography of Gram Parsons), that book is the biggest load of poorly researched, factually inaccurate, fantasist rubbish you'll ever read. Literally, it reads like a fictionalised account of Parsons' life and career. Awful stuff! I'd suggest either Hickory Wind: The Life And Times Of Gram Parsons by Ben Fong-Torres or Gram Parsons: A Music Biography by Sid Griffin. Either of these is well worth picking up, although I'm not sure if the Griffin one is still in print. At a push, I think I'd say go for the Ben Fong-Torres one because its just a bit more factual and less of a fan letter to GP's music than Griffin's book is. If you want a book that focuses in on just the FFB era, Hot Burritos: The True Story of The Flying Burrito Brothers by John Einarson is supposed to be excellent. I can well believe it because I've read Einarson's book on The Byrds' Gene Clark and that was superb. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice; I'll definitely keep an eye open for those three (and avoid the Polly Parsons one!). - I.M.S. (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say - David N. Meyer's book is also supposed to be utterly brilliant. It's called Twenty Thousand Roads: The Ballad of Gram Parsons and His Cosmic American Music. I haven't read it yet but I've heard lots of good things about it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news -- I've checked the catalogs of local libraries, and Meyer's book is the only one I've found. I'll tell you how it goes... - I.M.S. (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear that you're enjoying the book. I really must get around to reading it myself one of these days and no, I didn't realise that Coon Dog Connor was quite that notorious among the Japanese military command. After our recent exchanges I too checked out my local library's database and Twenty Thousand Roads is the only GP book they've got as well. I think I might have to order it myself at some point. Anyway, I see that you've already begun adding refs from it, which is great, but might I suggest that you use the full reference template format? This way it'll keep all ref formatting standardised across the article and it'll also mean that if any changes are made to the ref template itself by wiki community consensus, those changes will automatically be displayed in the GP article and won't need to be implemented by hand. I've included an example of the "cite book" template for you to use here:

<ref>{{cite book|author=Smith, John.|page=253|year=2002|title=The Idiot's Guide to Brain Surgery|publisher=Cranial House|isbn=0-95281-401-X}}</ref>

Please ignore the invisible "nowiki" tags that I've added, they're only there to make this ref template display properly on your talk page.--Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would advise against naming the entire book within the citation. What is generally viewed as proper is naming only the author, date, and location (<ref name="John 253">Smith, John 2004, p. 253</ref>) within the ref itself; full information, such as ISBN, publishers, etc, can be located in the ==References== section, and the actual {{cite book}} can be located there. Would converting all refs to {{sfn}} be alright with you? Once it's in place, it makes for a streamlined look, and easier referencing (you can see some examples at The Beatles and The Long and Winding Road. Tell me what you think. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, an exception is when you only cite the book once or twice; it is generally acceptable in that case to list only the author, title, date, and location within the ref, without further info in the References section. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I've always been aware and from what I can see at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations it's very much a case of whatever the consensus is among current editors or what style is already being used in any given article. There's no definite right or wrong way to list inline citations. I only suggested doing full refs because that's personally how I like to see them done - for total transparency and maximum informational disclosure. I favor that method with an accompanying short "Bibliography" or "Further reading" section - as can be seen at "Mr. Tambourine Man", Sweetheart of the Rodeo, "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue", and "Chimes of Freedom". However, that's just me and I really don't mind if you would prefer do it the way that you're suggesting. At the end of the day, it really doesn't make much difference which method we use as long as the article is comprehensively referenced. So, if you want to convert all of the refs to {{sfn}}, then feel free to do so and I'll try to keep any refs that I might add in the future consistent with this style. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked the quote box! :-) I agree that quotes are always good in biographical articles. It’d be nice to find another one for later on in the article. I'm also thinking of adding a couple of media samples but I need to have a good long think about exactly which songs to excerpt because to my mind, they should be carefully chosen to illustrate specific, important aspects of Parsons' music. It'd be great to choose one that illustrates Parsons' concept of "Cosmic American Music", for example - kinda like I've done with "You Don't Miss Your Water" in the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article. Anyway, have a think about this and let me know if you have any good ideas for songs to use.

Also, I'm thinking of creating a Gram Parsons navigation template at Template:Gram Parsons for use in the main GP article and other related articles. What do you think about this idea? Do you think that there's enough GP related Wikipedia articles to warrant one or is it overkill? I notice that Janis Joplin has one at Template:Janis Joplin, which I think is similar in size to how GP's one would be. Anyway, I just wanted to get your opinion on this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to bring up sound samples as well—I would use no more than four, probably three (Gram never made enough drastic changes to his style over the years to warrant more than that, but his style is dynamic enough that it requires a fair amount of representation, IMO). How about:

• "Luxury Liner" (ISB - one of his most famous songs), or "Hickory Wind" (Byrds - probably more famous than LL, and so many have covered it. I think it would be a good representation of his songwriting and softer acoustic side)
• One from the FFB - can't think of a good one. I've heard some people call "Older Guys" a departure into doo-wop, but I'd rather use something more representative as a whole of the period. "Hot Burrito #1" has received a lot of critical acclaim.
• GP - "She"? "The New Soft Shoe"? "How Much I've Lied?"
• Grievous Angel - I'd probably go with "Love Hurts" - with the harmonies between Gram and Emmylou Harris, I think it's the best song to illustrate his period recording and touring with her; a live version was also nominated for a Grammy in 1983.

And I don't think it would be overkill to create a navigation template; I'll whip one up real quick if it's alright with you. - I.M.S. (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine that you've created a template - I definitely felt that it needed doing. As for songs to sample, personally I think that three audio samples would be enough, given GPs’ short career. To my mind they should be educational - highlighting particular facets of Parsons' music that are discussed (with refs) in the text. Really, I don't think it's the sort of thing we can do at the moment, not until the article is a bit more comprehensive, but it's worth thinking about in the meantime. The three songs I'm personally leaning towards at the moment are...

• "Do You Know How It Feels to Be Lonesome" (ISB) - I could go with "Luxury Liner" but I personally think DYKHIFTBL is a better example of the heartbreaking quality of Gram's music (particularly that cracked vocal). It's also a song that Keith Richards has cited as being a good example of the "high lonesome" quality of GPs' music, and it's also been covered a number of times. (the ISB version also pi***s all over the later FBB version IMO).
• "Sin City" (FBB) - I would suggest bypassing The Byrds era because I'm planning to add at least two more samples to the Sweetheart article, including "Hickory Wind", so anyone who's interested in that period can hear samples over there. I think I’d nominate "Sin City" because it's a smart commentary on the nascent L.A. country-rock music scene that Gram was a part of and it's been covered a lot of times, making it arguably the FFB's most famous track.
• "Return of the Grievous Angel" - It's a great representation of the sound that Gram was working on (both live and in the studio) at the time of his death, it's been covered a fair few times by other artists, and it's kind of considered Gram's signature song - with GP himself often being referred to as the "Grevious Angel" in modern media. In fact, Allmusic calls it a "marvelously literate distillation of Parsons' musical style and the myth he created for himself." I do take your point, however, about the Grammy Award-winning "Love Hurts" highlighting those beautiful GP/Emmylou Harris harmonies but that could also be accomplished if our excerpt of "Return of the Grievous Angel" included the section where they both sing: "So I headed west, to grow up with the country/Across those prairies with those waves of grain/And I saw my Devil/And I saw my deep blue sea/And I thought about a calico bonnet from Cheyenne to Tennessee." --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S.! I've noticed your excellent work on GP & the Kinks. My impression of activity on Freewheelin' article is much minor editing goes on, tweaking refs, but nothing substantive. Any suggestions before we head for PR or GAN? best, Mick gold (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm travelling at the moment, so I won't be able to contribute steadily until I return in a day or so. Sorry about the inconvenience—I too have noticed the "lull" at FW, and I'll try to jump back in and actually do some content work as soon as I can. I've bought a few books—Positively Main Street (1971) and Heylin's Behind The Shades Revisited—which I haven't had an opportunity to read quite yet. Would you recommend these?

As I said, I'll be able to take a more in-depth look at FW in a day or two—I'll tell you what I think, and then perhaps we could discuss going to PR (which can never hurt). I don't think we're quite ready for GAN. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Behind The Shades Revisited is the closest we've got to a good Dylan biography. It's better written than Sounes and many of the interviews with Dylan's fellow musicians are good. Thompson's Positively Main Street violently divides people. Gray's entry on Toby Thomspon in his Dylan Encyclopedia frames the issues well. Of course I've mined a lot of stuff from Heylin for FW. Mick gold (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice! - I.M.S. (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dylan under construction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. That GA & FAC seemed surprisingly fast & painless, & it seemed to be carried out by a slightly smaller number of editors. How many sub-paragraphs must one wikipedian edit? The answer my friend... Mick gold (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the star, I.M.S., and congratulations! I agree with Mick gold that the GA & FAC seemed surprisingly fast & painless compared to the very long process we seemed to go through on LARS. Maybe we're getting better?? Moisejp (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so! And congrats one more time to both of you - you've done some really amazing work; I'm sorry that I wasn't able to be as active in the collaboration this time around. - I.M.S. (talk)

I.M.S., so that means all "normal" websites (except govt and company sites, etc.) are italicized? But a website is not a "work" in the same way an album or movie title or magazine or newspaper name is. At least it doesn't seem so to me, but it looks like from what you're saying, that's Wikipedia's policy? If so, I have been mistakenly correcting a lot of works to publishers over the months. But for our Freewheelin' article, if you look in the References section, none of the websites that aren't online magazine/newspaper are italicized (because I was intentionally making them all "publisher"), and no one corrected us in the FAC. For "Like a Rolling Stone" too. Maybe the most important thing is that we be consistent. There are a handful of other "publisher" websites in the Reference section of TBT (not to mention lots in LARS and FW). If we change that one, we have to change them all, and then there's no turning back, that becomes our policy. I guess that's what it clearly says in the link you sent me, but again, no reviewers mentioned it in LARS and FW. Are you saying that's what you want to do? Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that "work" is the proper param for websites; but, as you point out, our use of "publisher" has not been challenged at FAC, which shows that there's no real cause for worry. Both might even be acceptable. Here are some FAs that use the "work" parameter for {{Cite web}}: The Beatles (see refs), Elvis Presley (ditto), Bob Dylan. If you're OK with it I'll go ahead and switch them. I'm fine with leaving it the way it is if you're still opposed to it or undecided. Should I move this conversation to the the talk page? - I.M.S. (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go ahead with changing them to "work." I'll begin with TBT. Maybe we should think about doing it for the other Dylan FAs and GAs for consistency. I'll try to fit that in at some point. Thanks for pointing this out to me. Moisejp (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the parameters on Freewheelin'. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I.M.S. I will try to do LARS very soon. Moisejp (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For improving articles with others within the Dylan project. Richhoncho (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Basement Tapes 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 Basement Tapes for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on The Basement Tapes attaining WP:GA. Moisejp & I are thinking of heading for WP:FAC. How say you? regards Mick gold (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.M.S., I have a message for you and Mick gold at the bottom of Mick gold's talk page. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another message for you and Mick gold on his page. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. Yet another message for you and Mick on Mick's page. Talk soon! Moisejp (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts about wording of FAC? [2] Best, Mick gold (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take 2: I've left a query here. Mick gold (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. I left a couple of messages on Mick Gold's page that you should probably read, too. The couple of paragraphs about Chronicles are not so important, but what comes after it is. Thanks! Looking forward to any feedback you have about that. Moisejp (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. I replied to Moisejp here. Mick gold (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. I hope all is well. There's another message from me for you and Mick on Mick's page. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I favour "List of Basement Tapes songs (1975)". You can respond to my proposal. Mick gold (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.M.S., just to let you know, I'll be out of town with no Internet access for the next 80 hours or so. If any decisions need to be made while I'm gone, feel free to make them without me. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I.M.S. You seem pretty well informed about Dylan, so I thought I'd come to you with this question. On the page pertaining to Dylan's '66 World Tour, under the section "Tour Dates", is a whole bunch of unreferenced dates from the tour. I don't know if half of these are right, or all of them right, or if any of them are right. Right now I am trying to clean this page up a bit, and would like to have some verification on these dates. If you could send me a website, book title, et cetera, that could verify all of that information, that would be greatly appreciated. And, another thing: do you know if Olof Bjorner's Still on the Road has all of the information from the tour, including all of the dates? Thanks! BootleggerWill (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Will; great job so far on the article. Here are a few answers and suggestions:

• Bjorner's page looks well researched, but I wouldn't use it as a sole source. One can't guarantee that it's complete and comprehensive; certain tour dates are not always known or well-documented, and there might be a few missing. The same can be said about all lists and records of live performances from the 1960s, but combining information from multiple sources will present a wider and hopefully more comprehensive list of dates. Bjorner's site is definitely a WP:RS (you can see a thorough discussion of it here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Like a Rolling Stone/archive2; it has also been discussed in several WP Dylan FACs), but I would back the tour dates up with a printed source. Your best bet would probably be Clinton Heylin's A Life in Stolen Moments: Day by Day, 1941-1995 which contains tour dates, sessions, and other important events, along with interesting anecdotes. Although it's expensive, Bjorner's Olof's Files: A Bob Dylan Performance Guide 1958-1969 might prove useful to you as well.
• I would definitely suggest taking the article through a peer review, and possibly a GAR when you're ready.
• Post on the WP:DYLAN talk page; I'm sure we'd all be willing to lend a hand.
• I would also ask Mick gold and Moisejp about sources. Mick's probably got a much larger Dylan library compared to my meager stack.

Good luck! - I.M.S. (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S., I've just read Bob Dylan World Tour 1966 for the first time and found a detailed account of Drug Use. I've posted a query about this here [3] and I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this [4]. Edit it more if you think it prudent. Mick gold (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I.M.S. No, I haven't retired, and in fact, miss the work. After a few years of intensive involvement, however, I needed to take a hiatus, mostly for family reasons, though personally it gave me the chance to delve into some related interests. I'm now at the point where I'd like to jump back in where I left off. And sorry, I'm so late responding, but I even stayed away from my "mail." However, I truly miss being involved and most of all, the interactions with you guys, who certainly embody the essence of teamwork and the general comraderie that goes along with it. See you soon.

Hi there Allreet; it's great to hear from you again. There's no need to be sorry - we all need time to deal with off-wiki matters. I must admit that I have not been very active in this last collaboration, but I'll definitely try to contribute more to whichever article we focus on next. WP:DYLAN's current project is The Basement Tapes, which we're waiting to re-file at WP:FAC (see Talk:The Basement Tapes and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Basement Tapes/archive1). We failed due to a crucial support vote coming just a minute too late.

Again, it's good to hear from you; I hope to see you around the WikiProject soon. - I.M.S. (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering if your still around, because some guy added {{inactive}} to the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Kinks did not even add {{semi-active}} first. Was going to revert this but i have been reverting this guy all over and think its best someone else does it here. Hes adding tags all over regardless of what are policies are in this regards (for it to be 7 months inactive before adding any tags).Moxy (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Moxy—thanks for alerting me to this. Unfortunately I've been very busy lately and haven't been able to devote time to Wikipedia. I am, however, hoping to resume editing sometime around the holidays when I have more time. I think that the semi-active tag is the most suitable for WP:KINKS; although there are very few members and little discussion, there are many important Kinks FAs and GAs that require regular maintenance and categorization, and I think the WP and its subpages aid with this. I'll go ahead and add {{semi-active}}, unless you have any objections. Many thanks, - I.M.S. (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - almost didn't recognize you due to your username change - thanks for all your help in the past setting up Portal:The Kinks and Portal:Bob Dylan! - I.M.S. (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMS. I've been editing the article Time Out of Mind for some time. And recently I requested for a GA review of the article. As an active member of WP:DYLAN, I'd like to know your view on the present standard and scope of other possible improvements of the article. Thanks in advance.--Sayantan m (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments. It'll be a great help for later improvements of the article and I'll work on the problems as soon as possible.--Sayantan m (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays I.M.S.! I just started doing my first GA review and am using how you did my Gillian Welch GA review as a model.. it works well to go through a few different steps like that, before getting to the assessment. Anyway, thanks again for your help with that article and I hope to see you around again. --CutOffTies (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there CutOffTies - I was just thinking about that review the other day! I had a good time reviewing and working on the Gillian Welch article. Have you considered working towards FA again? Anyway, good luck with your first GAR and happy holidays! - I.M.S. (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I.M.S., it could certainly use some improvement in the copy, and would like to do it one of these days. Perhaps a new album from her will provide motivation! --CutOffTies (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^™ and © 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. How are things in your neck of the woods? Here all is well. Did you see on the LARS talk page there is an Allmusic link that no longer works? It is for ref #72 "Like a Rolling Stone Covers". It'd be great if we could fix that up before the 8th, when as you know LARS will be the article of the day. I had a look around the Allmusic site but couldn't find that covers page. If you have time, could you have a look, too? If you don't think you'll have time, I could ask other people, too, but I thought I'd ask you first. If we don't find a new link for that, we may need to shorten the list of artists who've recorded covers and find individual refs for each one, which may be a bit of work. BTW, I never did get around to changing the publisher= parameter to work= on all the LARS refs like I promised I would, but I am determined to do it before the 8th. I wanted to do it yesterday or today, but I just haven't had the time. But, yes, I definitely will before the 8th. Thanks, and take care! Moisejp (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, I couldn't find that link either, but we can probably use this one: http://www.allmusic.com/search/track/Like+a+Rolling+Stone/order:default-asc as it lists all the versions of "Like a Rolling Stone". I'll go ahead and add it. Did you know that Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs did a version? That might be worth adding. - I.M.S. (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately there's some kind of glitch on that link, such that it lists the same releases over and over again, but dispersed throughout are occasional other versions. I'l do my best and also probably change some of the ones we list to match our new link. When this gets to be the article of the day, we are going to have so many people trying to add their favourite band to the list, and in the lead too!! Moisejp (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. How are things? Mick gold and I want to nominate Highway 61 Revisited for GA. I assume you'll want to be part of the nomination? Let me know if you don't. There's a brief discussion about it on the article's Talk page if you want to check it out. I see you haven't been active in the last couple of weeks, so if I don't hear from you I may include you in the groups co-nominators and if for some reason you don't want to be involved you can un-nominate yourself. Or if you feel strongly the article is not ready for GA you could leave a note on the Talk page. BTW, while I have your attention, there is also a matter I have brought up on the LARS talk page about a non-free photo that someone has added that maybe should be deleted. If you have time please check that discussion, too, Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Moisejp - thanks for alerting me to these things. I really appreciate your thoughtfulness in including me; you're free to list me if you see it fit. I'm sorry that I've not been active recently at the article - I hope that I can be of some help in the coming GA nomination, addressing issues and such. Have a nice day! - I.M.S. (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Highway 61 Revisited 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:Highway 61 Revisited for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I. M. S. I've been working on an article on Mississippi John Hurt's 1963 album Today!. It's not up yet, and since you're involved with roots music, can you take a look over it, see if there's anything I can do to it before I put it up? Thanks. BootleggerWill (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Josette Baujot.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I.M.S., how're you doing? I hope all's well. I see from your contribution history you haven't been active for the last couple of months. Well, about the Blonde on Blonde article, we're likely going to be adding some sound clips. If you're interested in voting for which songs would be good to include, please add your thoughts to the article's Talk page. Take care and talk to you later! Moisejp (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp - thanks for contacting me. I must sincerely apologize, once again, for my lackluster involvement with the Wikiproject over the past few months. I've been very busy, and I found it hard to devote time away from "real life" to work on Wikipedia. I would be happy to give my opinion on the sound clips, and I'll also try to look over the article and copy edit a bit. Have a great day! - I.M.S. (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I.M.S. We have just nominated Blonde on Blonde for GAN. I put you as a co-nominator. Let me know if you don't want to be, and I'll take off your name. No worries either way—Allreet and Mick gold are also co-nominators. (BTW, there's a big backlog at GAN right now, so it'll probably be a while before the article gets reviewed.) I hope all's well! Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Blonde on Blonde you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blonde on Blonde for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Moisejp (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. How are you? We've got a discussion going on the Dylan WikiProject talk page about what to do next. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BoB has now passed FA [5]. Great work, and Happy New Year! Moisejp (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S., Hope all is well with you. I would be interested in your opinion on this question. Mick gold (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I.M.S. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at a recent addition to Dylan's "Don't Think Twice, It's Alright". The issue is a new section that includes two paragraphs and a photo of the artist of a cover version that's scheduled for release in January. I removed the material as unnotable, though both the artist and planned compilation certainly are. It's just that most of the added material is about the cover artist and what a big influence Dylan has been on her. My opinion is that this information is trivial and is being given undue weight; in effect, it lends nothing to an understanding of the article's subject, the original song. BTW, I removed the material based on notability, and the author, an avid fan of the cover artist, reinstatated it. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm asking other editors to chime in. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, I spotchecked Blonde on Blonde, and the FAC requires attention regarding the spotcheck. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I.M.S. what is your opinion of the editing [6] going on with Bob Dylan article? Mick gold (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this exchange on Blood on the Tracks: Half-Speed Master

It should be noted that the original master tape was slower than the recording released on the album. A Vinyl-Edition of BoTT was released, the so called "Half-speed mastered" recordings. Dylan sped it up after recording it, due to the fact that he thought it "dragged". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.173.195.167 (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confused - "half-speed master" refers to a process used by several record labels, most notably Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab, back in the late 70's, in which the master tape and the cutting lathe's speed was slowed by half in the mastering process. Supposedly this created deeper grooves and, consequently, a better sounding recording. You can read a better description of it at Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab#Half-Speed LP Mastering. Many albums were reissued using this process, and bore a sticker or banner across the top of the album reading "Half Speed Mastered". If Dylan actually sped up the original master tape, an idea which I find implausible, there would be a noticeable change in pitch to the recordings. He might, however, have replaced some of the songs with faster versions shortly before Blood on the Tracks' release (although I'm unaware of this) - perhaps that is what you heard of? - I.M.S. (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

==

Although you found the notion that Dylan sped up the tapes to be "implausible" that is exactly what happened. Clinton Heylin in his book Behind The Shades notes, "As a futher sleight of hand, Dylan seems to have actually sped up the resultant album., both Minneapolis and New York cuts, by two percent, in the mastering - presumably because he found the material dragged a little. The vinyl 'half-speed master' evidently used the pre-sped up tape, making for quite a different listening experience."

The original LP and the half speed master, which was released years later, sound very different. There is a noticible difference in pitch. The person making the original comment was not confused, but perhaps they were not as clear in their explanation as they could have been.

Thanks for uploading File:Norman Blake.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edge of America, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 497th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the collaboration on The Basement Tapes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... and today's Blonde on Blonde! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 497 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire), "a classic British album from 1969"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... seven years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As a listed DYK participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions00:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibreak Holiday has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ Rob^Talk 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 10, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 10, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibreak Thanksgiving has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. This is a shot in the dark since I see you haven't been particularly active in the last few years, but in case you do still monitor this page, I thought you may be interested in my recent expansion to The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society. I recently opened up a peer review and I'd love to hear what you think. Cheers. Tkbrett (✉) 12:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Versus Powerman and the Moneygoround, Part One has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]