Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

when I see you editing The Byrds. Thanks. Okay. I am doing a radio show that is a "simulated" acid trip, using the Moody Blues In Search of the Lost Chord as a starting point and sticking other songs in between each of their cuts. Several songs between each cut. Can you offer a better song or two from the Byrds (or anywhere else) than 5D? Just wondering. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have all the Byrds (probably vinyl and CD up to Byrd Brothers, but don't have it. Since I don't use any music but things I have, or discover at KLDK, I might not be able to track down some of your thoughts. Perhaps it is time to get the Byrd Brothers? Food for thought. I appreciate your taking the time out from your Byrds editing to do a little Byrds consulting. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have an interest in knowledge in music and use Wiki musician bios. I looked up Gene Clark and saw that most of his bio had been removed. I joined Wikipedia and began to prepare new content and citations, but before I figured out how to add them the old Gene Clark biography was replaced. It appears that you are working on it and doing a great job. I saw the note that it needed citations and I believe that I can help. I have a lot of information on Gene Clark (and other Byrds related members and the bands they were in) but I don't want to start adding my citations if you are in the process of doing so. Do you mind if I start? This will be my first Wiki contribution, and I am using Wiki Referencing for Beginners, so I will probably start with the easy citations from biographies first, then tackle more complex ones. Thanks!Mudpuppie (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Mudpuppie (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kohoutek1138,

Thank you for you very helpful advice. Adding citations is a good way for me to begin contributing to Wiki. I added some citations last night and will add more tonight. I am using books at the moment because I am on vacation and only have biographies with me. I do have two file drawers of other source material at home. I will also review online sources and when I return I will revise my citations by replacing some with other reliable sources. I simply felt a need to add citations before someone deletes the entry again! I know that you wrote the articles from your own source materials, so I am sure that you may also want to change some of my citations.

One Question: None of Gene Clark's albums with the New Christy Minstrels or Byrds are included in his discography. I know that Wiki users often check entries to find out which albums former group members participated on, and I noticed that there is no consistency with how Wiki handles this matter. For example, the discographies of Chris Hillman and Michael Clarke include the group albums they participated, while those of Gene and Roger do not. I think it is more helpful when they are listed but I am unsure of Wiki policy. I think listed them for Gene Clark would be helpful to clear confusion about his participation on recordings with these groups and I am willing to add them. I have reliable material supporting Gene's participation on two NCM albums(Land of the Giants and Today)and the hit singles "Today" and "Saturday Night". There is dispute over whether he sang on the Christmas album that he graces the cover of, so I would not include it. I believe there is reason to list Gene's Byrds albums because biographical articles often erroneously state that he participated on only the first two albums, ignoring his contribution to Fifth Dimension, including being the primary composer of "Eight Miles High".

I noticed that the entry for Dillard & Clark is a stub, so I will add it to my "To Do" list. I would also like to write brief entries for Gene Clark's later collaborators, Carla Olson and her former group, the Textones, as they released albums that were highly regarded by critics and sold well.Mudpuppie (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a piece of copy concerning the above - you point is taken -but wouldn't it have been better (and in the spirit of Wikipedia) to have request a citation concerning the facts? I was about to add this information. Shoot first ask questions afterwards? Long Ben Every (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Younger Than Yesterday you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Younger Than Yesterday 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 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Younger Than Yesterday for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Younger Than Yesterday to Good Article status. Thanks for all your great work in this area, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your user page, we actually owe you even more bling than that.

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring The Byrds (estimated annual readership: 380,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Have you thought about taking on the David Crosby article at some point? It looks like that would easily qualify for another one of these. Again, thanks for helping so many readers with your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for the barnstar and half-million award. That's very kind of you. Yes, I have thought of tackling the David Crosby page at some point, although I'm currently working (slowly) to bring the Clarence White page up to GA standard, but after that I may move on to the Crosby article. There's a few other Byrds' album articles that I've worked on that are now within spitting distance of GA standard too, so they might be nominated for GA review after just a litle more work. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool--good luck, Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Younger Than Yesterday you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Younger Than Yesterday for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reverted change by Kohoutek1138 23 Jan 2014 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ballad_of_Easy_Rider&oldid=592038743 Unsourced indeed. Anyone with ears listening to the Fairport Convention cover will know that its in three time. I'm not going to change it again, but perhaps you need to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary. 212.159.44.170 (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could, you know, get up off your lazy arse and actually find a reliable source to support the information that you want to add to the article. Maybe you should read WP:BOP#Burden_of_evidence. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Byrds McGuinn White Parsons Battin.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After 10 months in the hospital, I am back, albeit slowly right for the next couple of weeks, but I'm staying in my father's home until I'm more stabilized and everything in my body doesn't hurt just from standing or sitting! So much has changed since I've been gone; rules that relate to what I do, so I'm going to have plenty of questions. Happy to be home though. Missed you and a few more here. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It confused me the first time I read it. (But I went straight to the info box: Who the heck's Jim McGuinn? Roger's brother?) And how do you account for the info box referring to "Jim McGuinn" in the photo of the Byrds, taken when he was already going by "Roger," but "Roger McGuinn" under "past members." Looks confusing enough to me to warrant clarification.

From his debut with the Byrds (when I was 10 years old--I witnessed their first network TV appearance), McGuinn has always been known as "Roger" to fans, band mates, collaborators, the media and his record labels (and of course friends he would make after becoming "Roger").

I'm certainly not going to engage in an editing war, but my suggestion would be to use "Roger McGuinn (formerly known as Jim McGuin)" in the intro, which I would argue is more accurate than "a.k.a.," but refer to him simply as "McGuin" (w/o link) thereafter, as is the custom in Wikipedia as it is just about everywhere. (If maintaining "a.k.a.," you may want add a Wiktionary link for readers not entirely fluent in English and its many abbreviations. The periods, btw, are extraneous.)

Oh, and change "Jim" to Roger" under the Bryds photo in the info box; consistency is very important.

Cheers !!, Rico

Hi Rico! McGuinn was publicly and privately known as Jim McGuinn from childhood until late 1967 (he was born James Joseph McGuinn). He changed his given name to Roger at that point, as a result of his indoctrination into the Subud religion, although his real name was actually only legally changed to James Roger McGuinn. In the Byrds article, as with other Byrds-related pages on Wikipedia, McGuinn's name is either Jim or Roger, depending on which given name he was using at the time in question. So, for example, he is referred to as Jim McGuinn in the article for the album Younger Than Yesterday (early 1967), but as Roger in the article for Sweetheart of the Rodeo (late 1968).

In the main Byrds' article, the Roger/Jim thing is addressed early on in the article lead, but since McGuinn was going by the name of Jim in 1965, when the photo in the infobox was taken, he is listed as Jim McGuinn there, because that was his name at that time. Similarly, he is "Roger McGuinn" under the "past members" section because that is his current name.

I'm sorry to have to say that you are wrong in your assertion that "from his debut with the Byrds, McGuinn has always been known as "Roger" to fans, band mates, collaborators, the media and his record labels." That is simply incorrect. He was known as Jim McGuinn to his parents, on album sleeves, to his band mates, in songwriting credits and in the media up until at least late 1967 (in truth, many media outlets continued to call him Jim into 1968, after his name change). There was even a silly rumour in the late 1960s that Jim McGuinn had emigrated to Rio and had been replaced by his identical twin brother, Roger! McGuinn himself later poked fun at this rumour with the title of his 1991 solo album Back from Rio. :)

However, I do take your point about changing the "a.k.a." to something like "Roger McGuinn (formerly known as Jim McGuinn)" for non-native English speakers and so, I will do that now. But in the article itself, he is referred to as Jim up until his name change is mentioned (in paragraph number 10 of the "Psychedelia (1965–1967)" section) for factual accuracy. I take your point about consistency, but not if it compromises accuracy, which it would in this case.

Hope that explains things a bit better for you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... Nicely done. :)

(I have some sources dating his name change to 1965, just before "Mr. Tambourine Man" was released, but after reviewing other material I no longer trust them. So, my mistake there...)

But calling him "Roger" under "past members" in the info box makes no sense to me. I changed it to Jim for consistency. (How could he be known as "Roger" in the past if he's "Jim" now?) At least the box is consistent, and if anyone wonders who Jim is, it's explained in the intro.

I also tightened up "(who was initially known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)" to simply "(known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)."

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this late response, been tied up with Xmas stuff. Actually, your sources are correct insofar as McGuinn's indoctrination into Subud did occur in January 1965, but the name change didn't happen until mid-1967. I guess he wanted to make sure he was serious about his dedication to the religion before taking the plunge and changing his name. :)

However, I've changed his name back to Roger in the past members. This is because, as a past member, he has used the name Roger for the last 48 years and still does. Even during his time with the Byrds, he was known as Roger for the last 6 years of his time with that band.

Good idea about tightening up "(who was initially known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)" to "(known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)" though. It scans much better that way. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot thank you enough for your work on some of my favorite psychedelic artists. I, too, have been working on psychedelic band's/artists of the 1960s. I' am especially proud of my work on The Litter and The Merry-Go-Round. I am not sure if you heard of them but I am sure an intellectual like you will give them a look. Anyways, keep up your amazing work for the artists that deserve it most! Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talk • contribs) 00:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Richie Havens Mixed Bag. On the album liner notes it is listed a open E tuning. In the citation listed on the wikipedia page for mixed bag it also states open E tuning. Why does this keep reverting to open D tuning as I can find no citation for this other than this wiki article. Refer to the original album liner notes. I can provide a picture if needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullococo (talk • contribs) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I know of your amazing work on articles about The Byrds, and I was wondering if you want to work on their single, Glory, Glory (Lay My Burden Down). It's just a request so I'll understand if you have more important things to focus on, it is just a song I favored from the band that I noticed had little info. TheGracefulSlick ( talk March 17, 2015 19:55

Hi Kahoutek: we have a disagreement about what classifies as "original research" (re: "Grim Reaper of Love" page). For me, the fact that a song (e.g., "Take 5") can be described as being in 5 is a perceptual, musical fact, not research. It is like saying that the "White House" is white; I don't think that needs a reference. You apparently disagree, so we'll have to work it out (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'll have to learn the arbitration rules, but I feel pretty strongly about this.). Finney1234 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A further analogy: in the Wikipedia writeup for Casablanca (film), the plot is summarized without providing any references (presumably, the writer watched the film and described what he saw). Is that "original research" that needs to be flagged? (BTW, I realize that there is a real issue here, and I was probably too quick in simply reversing your change rather than raising the issues with you first). Finney1234 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kahoutek: thanks for your polite and well stated response on my talk page. Perhaps we could keep everything on your page so there's a record of the give and take? I have a few issues, which I will raise separately over the next day or two. The issue here isn't just this minor "Grim Reaper of Love" article, but you're clearly a significant contributor to Wikipedia, who has a very strong bias towards a particularly detailed type of attribution which is not necessarily common or standard for Wikipedia. I'd like to hope there's a reasonable middle ground for music articles (I can see there's a slippery slope, and I don't want to see Wikipedia articles lose their verifiability either).

As far as giving references for the dates for songs such as the Beatles "Within You Without You", my reading of the Wikipedia "No Original Research section" is that that actually isn't necessary. "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". In this case, the dates probably did come from Wikipedia, but I have no reason to believe they're inaccurate, and the other articles do provide those sources. Adding references every 3 words for non-challenged facts seems to sacrifice readability for the sake of providing a non-required reference. Comments?

Also, why did you not remove my statement that this was "raga rock"? That was completely a personal interpretation, sans reference. The fact that I went from the referenced fact (from the reasonably HQ CD liner notes) that the song used an electric sitar to calling it "raga rock" seems like original research. What makes this acceptable?

Also: lets say that all the songs have been given dates, and we're both happy with the attributions for those dates. Would you object to saying "A preceded B and C", since it's obvious from the dates, or would you insist that still requires a reference?

The bigger issue is whether saying a song is in a 5/8 rhythm is a "fact" (the NOR article states that "Paris is in France" does not require a reference) or "Original Research", which I will take up later (I need to look at the "Burden of Proof" article first).

Thanks Finney1234 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Byrds artist Clarence White also had a son named Brad LeBlanc. He is a full brother to Michelle. Brad and his mother died in a motor vehicle accident during the summer of 1981 or 1982. I was a classmate of Brads. We were devastated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.32.144 (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2015 (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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Paul! I hope you are doing well and happy. I am not coming much here anymore but I remember the good days! Thank you again for helping me with your excellent edits. Cheers, D. Elitropia (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Elitropia. Have a great festive season! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sick after my innards exploded waiting in an emergency room in hospital-- a coma in October 2013 from which I'm still not healed. I awoke to find, (several months later) that I couldn't even touch two fingers together, from the months of atrophy. I have spent a year in a nursing home and now am beginning to function somewhat. I have thought of you often, and am hoping to see you tackle the David Crosby article!! I got Graham Nash's Wild Tales which is full of info and a real hoot, in fact there are clips of him being interviewed in You Tube which you should check out if you can. Merely a request, of course, but you are one of the best! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here, check this out! [1] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the beer! I'd also like to help more at the Folk Rock article and learn from you! North8000 (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about merging Set You Free This Time and It Won't Be Wrong. Do you approve? --George Ho (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Actually, I don't approve, no. The two songs are completely separate compositions and haven't even always appeared on the same single ("It Won't Be Wrong" had earlier been the B-side to the "Please Let Me Love You Single" in 1964). Each songs warrants its own Wiki page. The single wasn't even a double A-side and, even it it were, we don't have one article for "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane". Having one article for one song is the way things are normally done on Wikipedia. There really is no need to merge these two articles. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please utilize the "Studio" parameter in the album infobox. This is for the recording studio. "Recording" is for the date. Also, "reflist|2" is deprecated and is no longer needed. Reflist will automatically column-ize now, depending on the number of refs. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gene Parsons.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Kohoutek1138, I would like to thank you for correcting my song capitalization mistakes. I should have looked into the rules for that beforehand. I fixed the other incorrect edit I made, which was on the disambiguation page. However, brought back my edit of the title of their 1975 album. It was entitled The Grass Roots, not Self Titled, as evidenced here https://www.discogs.com/Grass-Roots-The-Grass-Roots/release/2760579. I am terribly sorry for my mistakes, but thank you once again! TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Skimming your page, I see that we have similar musical tastes. Good to find another Barrett fan! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries. I realised you were an inexperienced editor. As for the Self Titled thing, I didn't realise I'd reverted that, so good job. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that Roy Caton's surname was misspelled in the sources given for "Notorious Byrd Brothers", since www.discogs.com makes no mention of a Roy Caron.61.69.217.3 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs.com is edited by the general public and therefore is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. The two published books by Hjort and Menck take precedence. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation, it appears that you're right. Roy Caton actually has his own Wikipedia article here and has played brass on a number of other LA albums from the same period, by the likes of The Beach Boys, The Monkees, Nancy Sinatra etc, so that's definitely the guy. Well done for spotting this. I'll add a wikilink to his listing in the personnel section of the Notorious Byrd Brothers article. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Esszet (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Byrds Bob Dylan Ciro's.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) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For all your sterling work in making our coverage of The Byrds an enjoyable read, here is a barnstar. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much for this, Ritchie333. It's very nice of you. :) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my unnecessary correction! Somebody should unify these too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn!_Turn!_Turn!_(album) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Dimension_(album) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Byrds_%26_Mr._Hyde etc.--Tagyalog (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheByrdsChestnutMare.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) 17:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read sources: here: "In 1963, an English group called the Cabin Boys, led by Norman Shapiro, found themselves in Italy, where they were recruited by a new manager, given a new name, the Rokes, and got a contract with RCA Italiana. By 1966, they were writing their own material, including "Piangi Con Me," co-authored by Shapiro, which was released in Italy". Then here, official portal of the State Disco (which depends on the Italian Ministry of Entertainment). Complete history here.--Gigi Lamera (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have reverted your recent edits on the "Let's Live for Today" article because, a) the above information was already detailed in the article anyway, and b) it is incorrect to say that "Let's Live for Today" is a cover of "Piangi con me" in the strictest sense. For one thing, it has entirely different lyrics to the earlier song -- and I don't just mean that they are in English: the lyrics are not even a direct or approximate translation of the Italian lyrics. They are completely different and, as such, "Let's Live for Today" has an entirely different subject matter to "Piangi con me". In modern music business parlance, "Let's Live for Today" is a song that interpolates elements of "Piangi con me"; it's not a straight cover version.

Secondly, the article is about the version of the song called "Let's Live for Today" and that is the title by which the song is most recognized in the English speaking world (and this is the English Wikipedia, after all). It's perfectly fine to mention "Piangi con me", of course (it's a elevant piece of the story), but at the same time, let's not overstate its importance. This is not an article about the Italian language song "Piangi con me", it's about "Let's Live for Today". --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am now transcluding this discussion to Talk:Let's_Live_for_Today_(song). If you want to discuss this matter further, please reply there. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many error!! Mogol is Giulio Rapetti, not Ivan Mogul! In anyway is an english cover of Italian song.--Gigi Lamera (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to Talk:Let's_Live_for_Today_(song), do NOT comment her, please. Thanks.

In an article about WWII music, in the discussion of this song I found, "the Byrds covered it (to similarly ironic effect) on their first album." Do you find anything "ironic" about the Byrds version? I do not, but before removing it will defer to your judgement. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hope you're well! With regards to the Byrds version of "We'll Meet Again", I've certainly always considered it tongue-in-cheek, not least because it was covered by the band as a result of its ironic use in the Stanley Kubrick film, Dr. Strangelove. The band's biographer, Johnny Rogan, describes it as a "sardonic" take on the song in his Timeless Flyte book. So yes, I think adjectives like ironic, sardonic, satirical or tongue-in-cheek are appropriate. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have always viewed it is a lovely love song devoid of those . . ..darker intentions, and quite seperete from the mood of Dr. Strangelove, though they do dedicate the song to Peter Sellers and Slim Pickens. I will easily defer to your insights. Carptrash (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheLeftBankeStrangersOnATrain.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) 03:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have confirmed my suspicions. Would you agree Musicfan245 (who you reverted here) is a sock of the indeffed Dean12065? Robvanvee 15:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robvanvee, I can't say with 100% certainty, as I'm not an admin and don't have the tools to verify a sock account, but my gut feeling is that, yes, this is the same user as Dean12065. It's too much of a coincidence. Dean12065 was a "red link" user account and their changes to the Kula Shaker article were controversial with a handful of editors; now another "red link" user is attempting to champion the exact same changes to the article that Dean12065 did. Add to that the fact that it appears that Musicfan245 created their account shortly after Dean12065 was banned from editing Wikipedia for 6 months, and yeah, I'm suspicious as all hell. If it looks like a sock, talks like a sock, then... --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, was it 6 months? Well we can't be the only suspicious editors and I'll just keep watching this guy as I have been. It's only a matter of time, as was the case with Dean12065. It seems, as an attempt to lay low, Musicfan's edits have been less controversial however so it may take longer. Thanks Kohoutek1138. Robvanvee 12:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've just reverted Musicfan's latest revert on the Kula Shaker article, but I fully expect him to revert it again shortly, despite my request for him to open this up to discussion on the talk page to gain editor consensus, rather than edit war. And that's the other tell-tale sign: his editing modus operandi is exactly the same as Dean12065's was. I'm not gonna get into an edit war with him over it on that particular article, but yeah...I'd put money on it being the same person. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caught and blocked again. It was just a matter of time! Robvanvee 06:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robvanvee, that's great news that he's been positively identified and blocked again. These kinds of users are a blight on Wikipedia, if you ask me. Thanks for the update. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look what happened when I tried to discuss it with the blocking admin...quite mysterious! Does it make any sense to you? Robvanvee 16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...yeah, that's very weird. Not that that admin should feel obliged to discuss the matter, but the way in which the conversation was instantly shut down like that is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected Musicfan245 was a sock of Dean12065 at the end of April. When I highlighted this to the admin who originally blocked Dean12065, they didn't appear to be at all interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jayron32#block_evasion

The "Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dean12065" also doesn't exist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Musicfan245

2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:143A:A599:8EBE:863E (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is all very strange but for now the main thing is he blocked indefinitely so if you see any more accounts that look like socks of Dean12065 keep us in the loop. Also, you may get a better response from admin if you create an account here. Not definitely but most likely. Robvanvee 13:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be keeping an eye out for him under another name too, that's for sure. I think it's interesting how an editor's unique posting patterns and way of writing can betray then, even when using a different user name. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I don't think we have seen the last of him however I think, given that he may even read this, he will take a very different approach next time. You only need to read the Dean talk page to see how desperately this guy wants to edit and only music related articles, hence his refusing a topic ban. Let's hope that unique editing pattern he employed previously under the last 2 accounts remain, should he attempt another sock. Robvanvee 15:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel certain he will "out" himself sooner or later, should he attempt another sock. And I think you're probably right, we will see him again. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kohoutek1138. See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/You Ain't Goin' Nowhere/1 for why it was delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Sorry if I'm being dumb here AIRcorn, but is there more to this reassessment discussion? As far as I can see at that link, an editor called Ten Pound Hammer suggested the article should be delisted and you agreed with him. I'm not sure two editors thinking that something doesn't deserve its GA status is a particularly fair or thorough way of gaging editor consensus on the matter. I'm not saying that you both don't have points about possible improvements to the article, but wouldn't it have been a better idea to have suggested some improvements on the article talk page or at WikiProject Bob Dylan first? Or made those improvements yourself, in order to make what is already a GA article even more complete? Again, apologies if I'm misunderstanding things here. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have a real issue with participation at community Good Article Reassessment so it is not uncommon for only two editors to be involved. For comparison we also have individual Good Article Reassessments where one editor can delist an article. It is supposed to be a lightweigt process and it takes just one editor to award an article GA status. My main role at GAR is to close old nominations. As you can see that reassessment was opened 30th August so has been under reassessment for nearly 3 months and no one has left a comment or fixed the issues in that time. TPH nominates a few articles there and is usually pretty good at notifying people. One of the steps (step 5 at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment) is to Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and the nominator and the reviewer. My philosophy with reassessments is that the aim should always be to keep the article so if you are willing to work on it and address TPH's concerns I will revert my close. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, AIRcorn. I'm definitely happy to do some work on the article over the next week or so inorder to address TPH's concerns...I think he does make some valid points and the info he's tlking about should be readily available, given the huge amount of published litertaure abiut Bob Dylan. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I undid my close. If you keep the reassessment page updated with your progress so I, or another editor who looks at closing it, knows what stage the process is at. Keep in mind that quite a bit of time has passed so it is now one of the oldest open reassessments. AIRcorn (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look at the article over the next week and start to implemnt changes, as recommended by Ten Pound Hammer. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The references were moved from the lead of Eight Miles High because normal WP practice is not to have citations in the lede unless they are supporting what might be viewed as a controversial statement.

"The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section

Perhaps you'd be good enough to revert your edits. Much more work needs to be done to remove those that still remained.

Many thanks,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...OK, thanks for explaining. I always understood that it was down to the preference of the editors working on a page as to whether or not to include inline citations in the article lede. It's always been my feeling that, since most readers only get as far as reading the lede, inline citations in that part of an aricle are a good idea. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still working on fixing You Ain't Goin' Nowhere per the GAR? I notice there's still no information on the song's lyrical content/themes and composition, and the "covers" section still has major example-creep. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ten Pound Hammer, yes, I am. but I haven't done anything for a while as a result of Xmas and pre-Xmas work. Hoping to get back on it in the coming days. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ten Pound Hammer and AIRcorn, I've done a bit more work on the "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" article now. What do you think? I've trimmed back the "Other covers" section considerably to eliminate example-creep, and added what key the song is in (although I can't find anything about the chord pattern). Also, there's now as much info as I can find from reliable sources about the songs lyrics (they're mostly surreal, absurdist nonsense, truth be told) and how the song's composition evolved during the 1967 "Basement Tapes" sessions and again later in 1971. Is there anything else you can suggest that I should do in order to get it passed by the good article reassessment? Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think those edits helped substantially. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kohoutek1138 and thank you for the catch - if you could take care of the correct heading, I'd be much obliged. Franburke2 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)FB[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ManfredMannJustLikeAWoman.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) 17:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of McGuinn, Clark & Hillman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:TheTurtlesYouShowedMe.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The picture sleeve for the US release exists. Replacing...

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. George Ho (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheTurtlesYouShowedMe.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) 03:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't clutter up the Albums talk page any more with this subject ,as it's off-topic, so I'll move the discussion here. I've used the British Library a lot for the albums I've worked on over the last 10 years on Wikipedia, and the collection is very good. Almost every issue of NME and Melody Maker is in there (on microfilm before 1971, print copies from 1971 onwards), Sounds from 1971 to its end in 1991 (mostly missing between 1976 and 1980, but a good collection otherwise), Record Mirror patchy from 1971 to the mid-80s then almost complete until its end in 1991, almost complete collections of Q, Mojo, Vox, Music Week and Billboard, and Rolling Stone almost complete from the mid-80s onwards. There's also good collections of Disc, Let It Rock which ran between 1973 and 1975, about half the issues of 1970s magazine ZigZag, and a lot of other publications like Gramophone, Radio Times, foreign publications like Dischi e Musici and more, plus shelves of chart books and other music books. Uncut is available online for 1997 to 2000, and I know they have most issues of The Face and Kerrang! in there as well, although I haven't checked them out yet. In another room they have most of the UK newspapers on microfilm, so you can check music reviews from The Times, Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent as well, right back to the 60s and 70s.

You need a library card for the Reading Rooms, but it's easy to get - I think you just need to go with proof of name and address (passport and a recent utility bill will do), fill in the form and take your picture, and they issue it within half an hour and you're good to go.

I don't live in the UK any more so I only get to the Library when I'm visiting, unfortunately. But I wouldn't have been able to go this last year anyway... Richard3120 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this advice, Richard3120. Really helpful stuff. I'm really keen to do some research at the British Library now, following your suggestion. I actually just pickeed up a Fontana Records' promo pamphlet for the Lilac Time on eBay for just a few pounds and that's got lots of press cuttings associated with the band's first album in it along with their sources, so that will come in handy. Of course, being a record company promo item, it's bound to only include positive press, so I might still need some other, more negative reviews for balance, but it's a start. I plan to create articles for the Lilac Time's other Fontana and Creation albums, so I will need to source more reviews anyway, and your advice here will be very useful for doing that. Thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page it looks like you have an interest in music articles and I thought to ask if you might have some time to do a GA review at this time. The article for the group BTS was nominated by me a week ago though there is very little activity on the Music nominations during the summer. The article is currently getting about 35,000 page count per day. Could you consider this GAN nomination? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Byrds - I'll Feel A Whole Lot Better.ogg. 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) 18:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Orchids for Miss Blandish (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment you left on my Byrds edit. The reason I made it was because this paragraph calls this one lineup one specific "version" of The Byrds, but later calls all the different lineups with Clarence White one specific "incarnation" of the Byrds, and I felt there was a slight inconsistency there. Aaw1989 (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. There's no real reason why the words "version" and "incarnation" can't both be used, but on reflection I suppose the term "incarnation" isn't terribly suitable in this particular context. I think either "lineup" or "configuration" would be better choices for a replacement for "incarnation". As for "version", my Chambers English Dictionary defines the word as: "a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing." So, I think that is a suitable term to use in that particular context. Let me know if you agree. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. May I suggest something like, "...he helmed a new era of the Byrds that featured guitarist Clarence White, among others". Aaw1989 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kohoutek1138, I have reverted back to the "incarnation" wording as this does work better than "lineup" in this context. I think this is simply me making an issue out of an extremely minor thing in this excellent page that I know you played a very big part in making as good as it is. Thank you for putting up with my fussiness. Aaw1989 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem inclined to keep including versions of Ballad of an Easy Rider that fail wp:songcover aginsst wikipedia policy. Please don't. 203.13.3.89 (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SONGCOVER is a guideline, NOT a Wikipedia policy. Big difference! I will continue to revert any changes made by a vandalising IP address such as yours if I believe you are damaging articles with your delitionist practices. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, the reason that I came to this file is because it is one of the most used non-free files on the project. That usually highlights highly problematic usages of non-free media on the project, such as is the case here. While WP:NFC#UUI applies to images, it has generally held to apply to all media file types. I.e., an audio file doesn't get a free ride from the exclusions simply because the means by which it is conveying information is audio rather than visual. #6 from UUI clearly notes that such a file should not be used elsewhere when it has an article dedicated to it, but rather a link provided to the dedicated article. Mr. Tambourine Man is clearly dedicated to the song which File:Byrds Mr Tambourine Man.ogg depicts. Folk rock already links to Mr. Tambourine Man, so the criteria of #6 to link to the article dedicated to the file is well met. The problem is the file is on the article, where #6 clearly says it shouldn't be. I grant that the song was pivotal to the underpinnings of folk rock, but it isn't necessary to the article to have the file in it when there is a dedicated article to it. The file needs to be removed from Mr. Tambourine Man. If you disagree with this, I recommend you take the issue up at WT:NFC, or I can do it for you if you like. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out with an explanation Hammersoft. Let me first say that I'm not an expert on Wikipedia policy where these types of things are concerned, so I can't really comment on the veracity of your claim that the guidelines for images generally applies to all media file types. I'd need other editors to corroborate that assertion for me. I would also like to gently remind you that the guidelines at WP:NFC#UUI are just that: guidelines, not rules. As the page for non-free content itself says, the guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

However, I do take your point about the "Mr. Tambourine Man" sound clip being one of most used non-free files on the project -- though I would balance that by saying it's not too surprising given what an influential recording it is. So, I think my first suggestion as to how to improve this situation is to look at articles where the file's presence is perhaps a little less necessary or important to a reader's understanding of the subject than it is on the Folk Rock page. So, for example, we could consider how worthwhile or needed its inclusion is in the article on the "California Sound" or the one on "Jangle pop"? There are numerous other recordings that could be used to illustrate both of those subjects.

I could even see that removing it from the "Mr. Tambourine Man (album)" article might be worthwhile, since the single of the same name is mentioned numerous times there and, besides, there is another example of the Byrds' sound on that page anyway, with a clip of "I'll Feel a Whole Lot Better".

If that's not an acceptable compromise -- or even if it is -- we should maybe open a discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, rather than at WT:NFC in the first instance. It would be good to get a broader range of editor opinion on this than just you and I, as I'm far from being an expert on the matter and it also has potential ramifications for many articles in that project. Let me know your thoughts and what you think the best way to proceed is. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want other editors to corroborate the assertion, I invite you to start a discussion at WT:NFC. But, let's do a thought experiment on WP:NFC#UUI, and try imagining song samples instead of images and see if it makes sense to hold that UUI only applies to images. If it only applies to images, then it would be ok to use non-free song samples on discographies. If that's the case, then an article such as Elton John singles discography would be at liberty to include song samples for every single listed in that discography. That would make that articles the #1 user of non-free content on the entire project of over 6.6 million articles. #3; take a song sample singing about cars, such as Mustang Sally, and use it to have an audio clip on Ford Mustang. That song is regarded as one of the greatest hits with cars as a theme. So, why shouldn't it be on the Ford Mustang article? Or on Ford? Or on muscle cars? Or on cars in general? Where do we draw the line? How about #5? How about taking File:Edwin Starr - War.ogg and using it on Edwin Starr? It's regarded as the biggest hit of his career, so why don't we use it on his article? How about using it on Vietnam War? More generally, how about a one-hit wonder? Rolling Stone regards Take On Me as the top one-hit wonder ever. We have an article about the song that has a clip from it at File:A-ha-Take on Me.ogg. Despite the song being pivotal to a-ha, the clip isn't used on the page about the band, only the page about the song.

I can go on for a while here, but I hope you get the idea. Allowing such liberal use of non-image non-free media on the project would absolutely skyrocket the number of uses of non-free media on the project. We only allow non-free media where it's critical. We don't need to replicate a media file to every place where it might be relevant when an article already exists that is specifically about that media. That's how we limit the propagation of non-free media in this case. I hope this makes sense. If my words here are insufficient to convey why this is critical and why WP:NFC#UUI does apply to non-free media in general, then again I invite you to start a discussion at WT:NFC.

Reducing the number of uses of a non-free file, while helpful, doesn't answer the issue of allowing a non-free file to be used outside of the article dedicated to it. All uses are problematic. The removal of any single use out side of the article dedicated to it does not reduce the harm caused by it being used in any other place outside of the dedicated article. Geeze that's a long senstence. More simply; a wrong isn't less wrong because there's fewer other wrongs.

To starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music; you're welcome to do so if you like. But, understand that per WP:CONLEVEL, a wikiproject can't override the more general consensus. The more general consensus is what underpins WP:NFC#UUI. Even if WikiProject Rock music decided this usage was ok, it wouldn't matter. If you want to override WP:NFC#UUI and get a special exception, you're going to have to try WT:NFC.

Lastly, and most importantly, I want to address the assertion that a guideline is something that can be (not using your words, I know) set aside. This just isn't the case. I've seen various people attempt this before when it comes to the WP:NFC guideline. It never works. This happened recently on 2019 Saskatchewan Roughriders season where I removed a non-free image per WP:NFC#UUI #17 [2]. I was reverted [3] with the assertion that the image wasn't a logo and thus presumably WP:NFC#UUI #17 didn't apply. The issue ended up being raised at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#File:CFL_SSK_Jersey.png, where it was borne out that WP:NFC#UUI did apply. WP:NFC is a very hotly contested subject. What is in WP:NFC is there in most cases because of extensive discussion and hammering out guidelines that support the interpretation and application of WP:NFCC. WP:NFC by design, does not include every possibly case scenario. Topically, where WP:NFCC comes in here is #8. The clip of Mr. Tambourine Man being in Folk rock page fails #8; the song is discussed, but if someone needs to hear the song, they can go to the article dedicated specifically to the song. It's unnecessary to replicate the clip where the song is mentioned elsewhere on the project. I hope this clarifies things. Again, if it doesn't, I invite you to start a discussion at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're under no requirement for being active on Wikipedia, but given it's been two weeks without response, I'm moving ahead with eliminating uses of this file per WP:NFC. I raised the issue at WT:NFC, in part on your behalf. You're welcome to continue the discussion there. Please do not restore uses of this file without gaining consensus to do so. You might disagree with the application of WP:NFC#UUI, but WP:NFCCE policy notes that it is the burden of people wishing to include non-free content to provide a valid rationale. A valid rationale is a consensus thing; it's not enough for one person to assert it is valid. If there is disagreement, it defaults to invalid. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Incense and Peppermints single.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheByrdsMrTambourineMan.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

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, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I was wondering if the second version of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue", recorded by the Byrds in August 1965, ever made it out on a bootleg. You seem like the person to ask. I read on your GA of the song's article that the recording made it on an acetate disc and was played by a jockey on KRLA, the sort of situation which seems conducive to a bootleg appearing. I see you cite Johnny Rogan – I unfortunately do not have access to his books – and I was surprised to see Christopher Hjort does not even mention the recording session in his day-by-day book. Tkbrett (✉) 20:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, as I now see it was Rlendog who nominated "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" to be a GA. In any case, I figured you would know because of all the wonderful research you have done regarding Byrds articles. Tkbrett (✉) 21:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tkbrett (✉), there's a bit of confusion about this, but the most up-to-date sessionography in Johnny Rogan's Requiem for the Timeless, Christopher Hjort's So You Want To Be A Rock 'n' Roll Star: The Byrds Day-By-Day (1965-1973), and the liner notes of the Columbia/Legacy CD reissue of Turn! Turn! Turn! all agree that the version of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" that appeared on the 1987 archival album Never Before (and was subsequently released on the expanded Turn! Turn! Turn! CD and both Byrds box sets etc) is the 28th June 1965 version, which Terry Melcher recorded for a sales convention in Miami. As you say, Hjort makes no mention at all of a second version of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" having been recorded in late August 1965, which is strange because Rogan's sessionography does and the entire session tape for it has appeared unofficially on a bootleg 9-disc CD box set from 1994 called Journals. It may well have appeared elsewhere on other bootlegs by now, but the Journals set was where all 14 takes of this second version of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" first saw the light of day – and in pristine hi-fi quality too! I've no idea which of those 14 takes was deemed the "master" and played on KRLA though. Hope that helps! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kohoutek1138, that was a really helpful primer. I have been looking for a copy of Journals but it has been hard to get a hold of. I have found a few download links that take forever.

One thing I was wondering: have you ever thought of making an article for the Byrds' 1965 UK tour? The disaster it ended up being seems to have loomed large for a lot of other American bands, like the Lovin' Spoonful, who had their own successful tour of the UK a few months later in April 1966. I was able to write the Kinks' 1965 US tour by mainly relying upon four pages in Doug Hinman's day-by-day Kinks book; I see that Christopher Hjort's day-by-day guide to the Byrds has over nine pages for their 1965 UK tour. It seems like fertile ground for a great tour article, but I did not want to overstep you in case you had plans on an article. Tkbrett (✉) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tkbrett (✉), I think doing an article about the Byrds' 1965 UK tour is a fascinating idea, and one I admit I'd never considered. As you say, there's a wealth of information in Christopher Hjort's book, but Johnny Rogan also goes quite in-depth about that tour in Requiem for the Timeless. Plus, there's additional info about it in Derek Taylor's As Time Goes By and his autobiography Fifty Years Adrift (Taylor was the Byrds' press officer at the time and organised the tour). So, I don't think we'd have a shortage of sources. I've never done a tour article before though and, to be honest, I don't have as much time to devote to Wikipedia as I once did. So, your help and experience (since you've already done the Kinks' tour article ) would be invaluable, if you'd like to collaborate on it? Let me know your thoughts. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kohoutek1138: I think it could be a lot of fun. I have been itching to write something about the Byrds, but any article I have thought about working on – "I Knew I'd Want You", "I'll Feel a Whole Lot Better", "She Don't Care About Time", or some other B-side – was already pretty thorough. I could work on assembling a skeleton of a tour article, though I am not sure when I would get around to it. At the moment, my focus has been the main article for another major folk rock group, the Lovin' Spoonful. Given your interest in the Byrds, I'm wondering if you'd be interested in checking out that article – the Spoonful achieved great popularity in the '60s, but I think the Byrds' influence was wider reaching in the long run. I'll probably nominate it to be a GA after I can improve it a little further.

In terms of Byrds literature, I have Hjort's day-by-day guide, Unterberger's two folk-rock books and I just got a used copy of Rogan's Timeless Flight Revisited. Are any of Rogan's other books on the Byrds worth picking up, or do you think I can get by with just TFR? Rogan's biography on Ray Davies has been invaluable in writing about the Kinks, and I was impressed with how much his research went above-and-beyond other biographers. I presume his Byrds research is similarly excellent. Incidentally, I just read Taylor's As Time Goes By. Fantastic book. Tkbrett (✉) 12:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kohoutek1138, this article that you put together long ago, and which I see you are still maintaining, is (barring one uncited sentence) certainly up to GA standard. It'd be great if you nominated it at GAN; and there's currently (this month only) a 'Backlog Drive' on so there's even a good chance it'll be reviewed quickly. If you're too busy to do it on your own, I can lend a hand if you like. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Chiswick Chap, that's a good idea. I've taken a number of articles up through GA review in the past, but I kinda lost interest when the last one I worked on and nominated sat there waiting to be reviewed for months. The news of a backlog drive is very interesting though. I think I'll take your advice and nominate it in the next day or so and hopefully it'll get seen to quickly. I may just give the whole article the once over and make a few tweaks ahead of that. Thanks for the info and suggestion. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]