User talk:Mick gold/Archive 1 User talk:Mick gold/Archive 2 User talk:Mick gold/Archive 3

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your diligent, valiant and patient efforts on Bob Dylan, which saved it from delisting it as an FA! plange 03:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mick! I'm not sure what you have in mind in terms of supporting Olaf as a reference, but I can't think of any more accurate or thorough a source on the issues he's researched. For example, in building a Dylan timeline, I found only a small handful of dates that he doesn't have, and I spent at least a year searching high and low. Meanwhile, I haven't found any sources that contradict him on major issues, just a couple quibbles. Also, Olaf is an important figure in Dylanology. Using him as a source (he's not at all part of the story, like Weberman) leads others to his door. BTW, I haven't abandoned my suggestions regarding the Dylan article. I fully intend to return, as soon as I wrap up a couple commitments on the local (eastern Pa.) pages I've been contributing to. See you soon. And keep up the good work. Allreet (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall do on backing you up. I took a look at the FAR page, only very briefly and I haven't had a chance to look back at the article itself, so I don't have much feedback on the dialogue at the moment. I did try the link one of the editors included, the one that connects to Olof's home page, which does look like a fan site. More useful (and impressive), I think, would be Olof Björner's Bob Dylan Yearly Chronicles. If I'm missing something in the thread, however, ignore this comment. The overall point is that someone who's published 11 volumes-plus on a subject that are available on Amazon is clearly an authority, not just an ardent fan. No need to respond, just let me know when you post your position.Allreet (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in awe. That's taking the role of editor beyond what I ever expected to see. Outstanding! I finally had a chance to pore over the FAR and was also impressed by your responses and restraint. I then looked through the Swede's site (nobody that he is) and found even more material than I knew was available. Obviously, this discussion would never have taken place if the books had been cited instead of the website, but then readers would have been denied what Bjorner has so generously made available. Maybe the link ought to go directly to the Yearly Chronicles page to satisfy the little old lady at the foundation, but I must say there's a certain charm to Olof's home page – which is to say, does information have to be slickly packaged to be deemed reliable? Anyway, I hope this puts the issue to rest. If you don't mind, I plan to email some comments to you regarding the article and to volunteer to help wherever I can. That may take a few days. In the meantime, I intend to add a one-liner or so to the FAR to second the expert opinions. Allreet (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick gold, how are you doing? My No Direction Home is the 1987 Ballantine paperback edition. I guess I should have checked mine was the same edition before adding that page number. Anyway, yes, it is in the "Heresy Toward Dogma?" section. So, yes、by all means, why don't you go with your edition's page number if you haven't already.

In the last few weeks, I have really enjoyed seeing the team effort as everyone has come together to try to pass this FAR. I'm sure we will, but I think surely this article has become even better, more concise, better referenced, more consistent, by having gone through the FAR process, so that is good. (Too bad if we end up having to lose Bjorner, though.) Have a good day! Moisejp (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, no problem at all. I was fully expecting when I made all those edits that some of them were going to be edited back or partially edited back, which is fine. I figured, what the heck, I'd try to cut the 2000s section down a bit, and see which changes you and others were happy with. For the No Direction Home years, yes, I think maybe we were editing that same bit at the same time and you may have had to change back my edit twice - sorry about that. I meant to write "focused on the years 1961 to 1966" not "1961 and 1966." But I am happy to keep the bookends about arriving in NYC and the motorcycle accident. I also agree we don't want the article just dates, and I guess we just have to find the right balance of how much additional info to include without including too much. Anyhow, cool, it's a pleasure to collaborate with you. If I make any further trims you're not happy with, don't feel at all bad about reverting them, because I really don't mind. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note, like Moisejp, I appreciate your asking and also enjoy the collaborative process. Revert away as needed. As for the sentence on the first sanctioned re-mix, the edit is a hard to explain because it's a style/better writing issue. But I'll try. "This" at the beginning of a sentence connects with the previous thought, but a more specific reference such as a synonym or additional fact would more naturally carry it along. Instead, "this" tends to punctuate the statement as the writer's observation rather than one of plain fact (what I referred to as "self-conscious"). However, in trying not to change anything else, I created a construction problem, whereas the construction you restored is better. A good example, one where I think I satisfied the problem, was the later reference to Gray's "price gouging" remark, which originally started with "this." Referencing fact at the beginning of the sentence, in my opinion, gives it more substance/natural weight and avoids causing the reader to pause. The same sort of solution is called for here, but it may take a more extensive re-write, as the Gray sentence did. Allreet (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, thanks for your lovely note. I agree that the article has been greatly improved through FAR - it's funny how much cruft can accumulate without you noticing until you actually have to actively weed it out - and i hope that the new legacy section has assuaged any fears you might have had about the article losing perspective on dylan's importance musically and culturally; so in addition to the punctuation, referencing etc. an all round success I would say. As far as Bjorner, i'm in two minds as a) it's obviously a great and authoritative source on dylan but b) even if we get it through the FARC, most likely some other editor will come along in 2 moths or 6 months or a year or whatever, and question it - so i'm personally of the belief that if we have another source with the same info, we should use that one to save us all infinitely recurrent ballache, and keep Bjorner as an external link. However, you clearly have access to many more dylan books than I, so ultimataly i'll leave that to your discretion - but if I do happen to come across alternate sources how would you suggest I proceed? If you're happy to periodically argue the legitimacy of Bjorner I'm also happy to let them stay if it's consensus. As for any other problems we might face - some editors will obviously still make an issue of the length, but i believe we've made the article much more focused, and we'll have to hope the consensus is that the subject warrants the attention (your comparison to the size of Ronald Reagan is an excellent point in our favour I feel), and that it doesn't lose its focus through its length. I'll read through it again now and see if there is anything else I can see.

OT: Yes, everything is great here in Vienna as normal, although we've just had an extremely disastrous election which has made me infinitely distrustful of about 1 of every 3 people I meet. Where exactly did your parents come from in Vienna, do you know? Would it be possible for me to gain access to any of your documentaries would you say? As always, it's a great pleasure collaborating with you and you're doing a marvelous job on Bob Dylan and your dedication would be the envy of any wikipedia editor. peace :) Warchef (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You, Moisejp, Warchef and others are doing a great job in honing the Dylan article. The rough edges and extraneous detail are all but gone, and it reads quite well. Though I haven't seen the article from when FA was originally awarded (I'll look it up), I can't imagine how the designation could be lifted with all the improvements that have been made. Kudos! Two items that I believe need attention, one longer term and the other soon. As I noted previously, Dylan's first year was pivotal, and a lot is glossed over between his arrival and the Shelton article. Otherwise, it's as if he arrived, played some clubs, and got signed, which hardly does the story justice biographically. That should not be of concern for FAR, but to let you know, I've scoured Sounes, Heylin and Gray for detail and will be looking at other sources to add information on Feb-Oct '61. That's longer term. The short-term item is the statement on Baez and Dylan performing at rallies. As far as I know, the March on Washington was their only rally together, and the Mississippi Voter Rally with Seeger was the only other demonstration he attended post-1961. I don't disagree he was prominent, but that's more because of his songs than what he actually did. To that I'll add: If this is the weakest link 1960-70 (and I believe it is), things are in good shape for this formative period. Allreet (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think there might be a COI problem if I cite the doc. If its a problem, let me know or send an email. Otherwise I'm poncing about with the article while getting up to speed on the sources, but I'd very much like to have you on board if its given a push, seeing as how you wrote it. O and merry christmas. Best, Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I might tap you for sources as I go, and no worries about being preoccupied, its great to see the work ye are doing on Dylan. As much as anything I just wanted to let you know what I was up to, given you are the main author. I'm doing general bits on van der Wyeden at the moment, but want to focus specifically on the Descent in a few weeks time. The doc gives a very good framework for structuring an expansion. O and thanks for the spelling catch, though I agree the current heading title isn't adequate. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2010 (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 © 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - looks fine - Jonathon Sedgwick's allegation was pretty flaky and I wasn't sure whether to include it or not. Congrats on getting featured article - great work. Dunks (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loremaster, did you simply click the "undo" button after I attempted to improve the prose of this article? I had thought that some of my edits improved the style, and included a web ref to a Seattle Times discussion of Estulin's claims which you have deleted. I have no wish to engage in an edit war if you have feeling of ownership of this page. My interest in Bilderberg was triggered by Jon Ronson's documentaries. best Mick gold 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your contribution. However, you are missing the point of this paragraph. The intent isn't to mention that Estulin has gotten some publicity in the mainstream press since there are other conspiracy theorists (such as Alex Jones) we could have singled out for that distinction. The intent is to highlight 1) the fact that the Bilderberg group and conspiracy theories about its real purpose were featured in international news because of the visit of Estulin to Cuba on 26 August; and 2) how Marxists are concerned about the effect it might have on socialist and progressive movements around the world. However, the Seattle Times blog post will be a useful source in a different paragraph. So thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that text would be questioned... nice to meet you by the way.. Anyhow, there's a good documentary with Mick Taylor carrying on a running conversation I found some time ago on You Tube, which is cut into 5 parts. In part 4 of 5, Taylor discusses the work he did with Bob Dylan, beginning with Infidels. I think watching all the parts are really interesting, but regarding Dylan, in part four: [1] Taylor talks about Dylan being the most gracious musician (not exact quote, but pretty much like it) that he ever worked with, and discusses Dylan's prolific songwriting abilities, stating that Dylan wrote the song "Blind Willie McTell" in the studio, and Taylor decided then to put it on his album. He isn't specific about the album name, though. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, and sorry I didn't notice your answer sooner- sometimes when I get more than one response, I don't notice the earlier ones. Nice to see that you found it! The whole Mick Taylor interview -(all the clips) are actually interesting. Would it be too much for you to leave a note on Talk:Mick Taylor so when somebody gets around to adding that album to Taylor's (and other people's) discography, that printed reference will be available? It would be much appreciated, I'm sure! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I have been looking at the GA for "Chimes of Freedom" with the thought of possibly improving it towards a featured article nomination eventually. Could you glance at it at some point in time? JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: Thanks and I'm certainly pleased someone is putting intelligent effort into improving "Chimes of Freedom". I had a quick look and made small changes, inc Ian Bell's name. My hunch is if you take it to featured article nomination, some editors are going to query the length of the quotes, eg the Bell quote is 155 words, and will suggest you paraphrase the material more. I'll take another look when I'm less busy. Mick gold (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: When you write about JFK assassination as possible genesis of song, you say "Although Dylan has denied that this is the case," I would love to know where Dylan has made this assertion. Do you have a ref? Best, Mick gold (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those were nice edits from you overnight. The section you mention here was written by a previous editor. Here is a useful link for some discussion of Dylan and JFK here: [2]. Also, here is a 2013 Rolling Stone article which repeats the comment about a possible Dylan denial here: [3]. Here is Dylan writing about his poorly received comments on Lee Harvey after the loss of JFK here: [4]. Dylan's exact words as far as I can see at this moment were “The whole thing about my reactions to the assassination is overplayed,” which is quoted here: [5]. A fairly good 2018 TLS article can be found here: [6]. Separately, from your edits last night, your version "igenen the mind", I have altered to "within the mind", and you can change it further as needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo: Thanks for your comments and links. I'm aware of the furore over Tom Paine speech, but neither speech nor subsequent "clarifications" mention CoF. I like the Karlin essay in TLS, and his point, "“For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones and worse / And for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe”, seem to reflect more on Oswald than Kennedy, or at least to embrace the assassin as much as his victim in their magnanimity." But of course Karlin is not substantiating BD denial re CoF. The only link that does that is Rolling Stone. They don't say where they get the BD denial from, still it is a kind of reference, so I'll add it to article until something better surfaces. ("igenen the mind" ??? No idea where that came from. Must be computer malfunction!) Mick gold (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both DannyMusic and I have been making enhancements to the article to incrementally move it towards an FA nomination. If you might have any ideas or possibly something like a check list of things to do for improving the article, then it might be useful for moving the article forward towards FA nomination. JohnWickTwo (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWickTwo:I've made some copy edits, trying to make the prose sharper. A couple of comments. As I mentioned above, if you take it to WP:FAC, some editors are going to query the length of the quotes, eg the Bell quote is 155 words, and will suggest you paraphrase the material more. The lines of Dylan's poem "'the colors of Friday were dull/ as cathedral bells were gently burnin'/ strikin' for the gentle/ strikin' for the kind/ strinkin' for the crippled ones/ an' strikin' for the blind" are quoted twice. Surely once is enough. In "Lyrics" the article seems to state that the song is set in night, between sunset and midnight. In "Interpretation", we are told "the sun slowly rises". So what time is it? I wish I could help you to improve this article to FAC but I'm afraid I've been run over by work. I'll try to look at it again and make some further constructive edits. Mick gold (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been an on-going incremental effort to improve the article and it would be nice to hear your added comments when you might have time. I have cut back the Wilentz and Bell quotes. Also, the previous editor apparently invented the "sun coming out" which is not in the song, though the clearing of the mist is depicted in the lyrics. Maybe it looks better now after the edits I put in on this earlier today given your suggestions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, how’ve you been? Are you planning to get the 6-disc More Blood, More Tracks? I’m leaning towards not but we’ll see. It has a new version of “SITLT”; we’ll have to add it to the “WTRF” article. Who would have thought when we worked on that article in 2012 that a further three versions of the tune would see the light of day in addition to the two we mentioned at the time! Moisejp (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thanks for your comment. I've been terribly busy with work, so apologies for late reply. Things have been hectic so I haven't done much on WP lately except try to keep an eye on the main BD article and prevent errors. I've bought the 6 disc More Blood, More Tracks. It arrived this morning, I haven't had time to listen to it yet. I see there is a new "SITLT" on Disc 3 and it's credited to A&R Studios, New York, September 17, 1974. When I look at Bjorner's log of that date, it doesn't list the song. [7] So I guess Bjorner will have to update his website in the light of "MBMT". I have added it to the "WTRF" article with a cite to the bobdylan.com website. You are welcome to change it if you can see a more elegant way to cite this new recording. Best, Mick gold (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit, Mick, it looks great! Take care, hang in there with your busyness, and I hope you have some relaxing time coming up for yourself. Ciao for now, keep in touch! Moisejp (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, Merry Christmas! I hope you're well and have time to relax over the holiday season with loved ones. Here things are going well, no complaints. I have about 10 days off work and am doing various family activities. By the way, an interesting development on my talk page, where Eddie Korvin, the engineer from the "WTRF" session, made contact about some small corrections to the article. (PS, have you got in some good listening of More Blood, More Tracks? How is it?) All the best, Moisejp (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Merry Christmas to you too! I have listened to more of BS 14, More Blood, and there are wonderful things on it, including some marvellous versions of Idiot Wind. Interesting to see Eddie Korvin on your talk page. It would be interesting to read his interview and to hear the 71/2 ips tape he refers to. I guess it would necessitate a pilgrimage to Tulsa, which I won't undertake in the near future. That Lucky Old sun is a song Bob has often performed, before recording a marvellous version on Shadows In the Night. Best wishes for the new year. Mick gold (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, you likely have already seen this, but the Bob Dylan portal (i.e., WikiProject Dylan), and various other portals, are being considered for deletion. It's sad, but it seems there isn't much traffic. I haven't commented on the proposal for deletion yet, still thinking if there's anything I can say. I hope you're well, will catch up more soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hi, I've been away in Paris editing a documentary about Cuba which has been going on for months. Just got back. So I've been rather inactive on WP. I did defend IMDb as an EL. And I did make a suggestion about Mr. Tambourine Man. I can't think of anything to say about the Dylan portal cos I have not been active on it. It's good to see you are still busy editing a variety of WP music topics. All best, Mick gold (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another "SITLT" performance released! I added it to "WTRF". Maybe if the 1976 leg of the Rolling Thunder Revue gets released on a future Bootleg Series, the known May 1976 live performance will also see the light of the day. :-) Moisejp (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Hi, Thanks for adding the new version of SITLT to the WTRF article. Thanks also for creating the article for The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings but I think you may have made a mistake by calling it Bootleg Series, Vol. 15. I think it has been released as a box set, comparable to The 1966 Live Recordings, but these 2 box set releases have not been given numbers in the Bootleg Series. If you agree with me, I think it can be fixed. Someone has added The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings to Bob_Dylan_discography#Box_sets but it is a red link. Many thanks for being an active editor & contacting me. I'm still dashing between London and Paris. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I assumed it was a Bootleg Series. Do you know how we can fix this? Moisejp (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I know how to edit articles but not how to change the name of an article. Perhaps you could contact an Administrator about deleting the article, and then create a new The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings article. Hopefully that would then link to the red link The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings in Bob_Dylan_discography#Box_sets. Mick gold (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mick. I asked an administrator to change the name to Bob Dylan – The Rolling Thunder Revue: The 1975 Live Recordings, which is how it is listed on Bobdylan.com. (The "Bob Dylan –" part seems superfluous, but that's how it's listed [[8]].) I also updated a number of red links to this name. I'm glad you noticed that I got the name wrong. Take care, my friend. It's always a pleasure to be in contact with you. Moisejp (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thanks Moisejp.I can see that has happened and it makes a lot more sense of an odd situation with the RTR wiki links. It's always a pleasure hearing from you and you are always making constructive edits and helping to keep WP on the right path. I wish I had more time for WP editing but hopefully I will... any day now. Mick gold (talk)

Hiya Mick. How've you been? I hope this thread is not too old and you don't mind me adding here. If you prefer, this could be moved to a new section. Maybe I'll do this one in bullet form. I've got various scattered (but still related!) stuff to mention.

• I think you saw I requested "WTRF" to be Today's Featured Article on June 3 for the single's release's fiftieth anniversary: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests Unfortunately, there is another request for another big anniversary article for the same day. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to see how many votes each gets. But another option is, for whichever of the two doesn't get June 3, there's also June 4 whereby the article would still be June 3 for several hours North American time; I had to resort to that option for one off my TFAs in the past, and it's not perfect but is OK as far as I'm concerned.
• I added the new version of "SITLT" from 1970 as we discussed. I noticed nobody has created an article for 1970 yet. I don't think I'm going to, partly because I don't want to mess up the official title like I did for Rolling Thunder Review above! It seems like 1970 may be the official title, but Dylan's website also mentions Bob Dylan – 1970 and Bob Dylan – 1970 (50th Anniversary Collection). Hmm, the ad [[9]] says "The recordings on Bob Dylan – 1970 were first released in a limited edition on December 4 as part of the Bob Dylan – 50th Anniversary Collection copyright extension series (which began in 2012)" but doesn't go as far as calling 1970 itself limited edition, but still they're not listing it among his official albums (https://www.bobdylan.com/albums/).
• Also as we discussed, I tried to add all the "SITLT" versions in to a table, but I couldn't manage the table to display in the footnote. It may be related to the kind of footnote or the kind of table (I tried some different combinations), I'm not sure, and there may be a way out there to get it to work (maybe if I look at lots of articles I could find an example of a table in a footnote somewhere and copy that template) but I don't have time to spend too long on it for now (who knows, maybe at a later time). I saved what I tried here [[10]], in case you're interested.
• Back to 1970, I didn't end up getting it yet, but did listen to excerpts of all the songs on iTunes. There's some nice stuff in there, maybe I'll eventually get to buying it. About the two tunes I asked you about, I found the two "Sarah Jane" alternate takes to be almost the same as the Dylan version, and for "Lily of the West" the versions were very different, and one of them was quite interesting (but even so I don't love it as much as the Dylan version). Moisejp (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Nice to hear from you. We're all well. I'm not sure I can add much of substance to the points you raise. I noted your Today's Featured Article request. It made me think O boy Did we miss a trick! 24 May is Bob's 80th birthday so maybe we should have made a request for BD on Main Page. He deserves it! But then the thought of how much madness and vandalism might descend on the article sobered me up. I still spend time trying to revert all the minor edits and vandalism that make the BD article worse. I have occasional bouts of WP energy. The last sustained burst was to improve the article on W. Eugene Smith, which is now better I think.

I bought 1970 from Isis in UK, which is fanzine I've written for but they also sell Dylan merchandise. Their website said 1970 would be a limited edition, it would not be replaced after initial run sold out. I've looked at their website but haven't yet found anything I could recommend as a WP:RS on this point.

My response to 1970 was similar to several critics [11]. There are no electrifying moments but it's a very pleasant listen because you feel as if you're eavesdropping on Dylan + musicians in the studio. My biggest revelation of this phase of Dylan's career was the Another Self Portrait set. I found it amazing, I thought "Pretty Saro", "This Evening So Soon", "Railroad Bill", and "Tattle O'Day" were as good as anything on SP, perhaps superior. Wonderful stuff. Mick gold (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy (belated) 80th to Bob! I like "Railroad Bill" and "Pretty Saro" a lot too. I haven't listened to ASP in a while, need to listen to it again to remember the other tracks you mentioned. Just a quick note that WTRF will be on the main page in a few hours or so. Just now I did a final round of mostly very small cleanup. The biggest edit I did was to remove the mention of James Taylor. I hope you don't mind. Although it's a kind of fun detail, I feel it may be best to remove for WP:Blp, especially since thousands of people are likely to read the article in the coming day. But anyway, if I may be so immodest on behalf of both of us, I think the article looks pretty great and your contributions including most of the Critical comments section and other parts are a big part of that. I'd like to say again what a pleasure it was working on this and other articles with you. Cheers, hope to talk again soon. Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Moisejp: Congratulations! WTRF looks great on the main page. A good read and an interesting addition to the critical shenanigans surrounding Bob's 80th. After we got used to 30 years of Bob on his NET it's a reminder that he was v low profile for 3 years. I confess I do miss James Taylor, it added a tiny soupçon of spice to the critical commentary. I see several references to material in Bob Dylan Archive in Tulsa, are they recent additions? I have the impression that BDA has not yet provided detailed account of contents as they're still cataloguing/sorting all the stuff. Best, Mick gold (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Ahhh now I remember! It was Eddie Korvin's dramatic appearance on your Talk page in December 2018. I recently plugged in to 3 day conference from UT Institute for Bob Dylan Studies. Some good stuff, especially from Sean Wilentz. Mick gold (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you please weigh in on this thread? Thank you kindly either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch: I've made my Suggestion. Hope this helps. May be able to contribute more easily next week. Mick gold (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Mick. All the best in 2020. I hope all is going well for you. Moisejp (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thanks. Happy New Year and all best wishes for you & your family in 2020. As Sgt. Pepper used to sing: "It's getting better all the time. (Can't get no worse)" Mick gold (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, heads up that here Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Discussion_of_samples there is discussion among some FAC regulars that Bob Dylan may be fit for demotion from FA. I haven't read all the details enough to figure out if they're saying it should go to FAR—it's already been 11 years since its last FAR, that we both participated in—or possibly if some people are proposing the Wiki community could use it and other articles to test a new procedure that would replace FAR. I know you've been doing lots of work over the years to maintain the article, and I'm sorry I haven't done more. I haven't had really a lot of Wikipedia time the last number of months (I think maybe you haven't either, for even longer than me) but I'd be happy to make time, with you if you're willing and able, to try to clean it up to everyone's satisfaction. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Thanks. I see what you mean. I've added a comment. @Moisejp: I've created a new section for our conversation. Best, Mick gold (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, I hope all's well. Just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about maintaining/improving the Dylan article. I've been busy and my little Wikipedia time has been a bit scattered on various stuff the last couple of months, but I do plan to jump back into the Dylan article hopefully soon and pick up where I left off in trying to find areas to clean up. Talk again soon, Moisejp (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Good to hear from you. I try to improve the Dylan article, have removed some cruft and trivia. I was stimulated to re-write the Shadows In the Night section by that burst of discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Best, Mick gold (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: Following my deletion of this material [[12]], there is a discussion of Bob Dylan and Alcohol here, Talk:Bob_Dylan#Alcohol. Any comments you wish to make are welcome. Mick gold (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I hope you and your family are well. Your opinion about Dylan's alleged racism against Croats would be appreciated. Best, Mick gold (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick. How have you been? Has the pandemic had a big effect on your documentary work? I hope you and your loved ones are all safe and well. We're all well here. I've been working from home the last six months with no problems. Lately I've been really busy and not on Wikipedia much. My current project is to try to slowly clean up Pixies (band), which I was involved in the FAR in 2011 but have been really bad at maintaining, and it's not in great shape. Anyway, I'm chipping away at it as time permits. I had intended to be more active in helping you maintain the Dylan article but didn't get past my little flurry of edits in March. I actually still haven't gotten to getting his new album yet.

In the magazine stands today I saw Rolling Stone has published it's latest Top 500 Albums list. Not sure if it's online yet. When it is, we'll need to update all the rankings in the various FA articles. I skimmed through and saw The Basement Tapes has dropped to #335. It's a travesty! In 1987, the same magazine ranked it #13 on the best albums 1967–1987, which is a lot closer to where it should be. Oh well, I can only explain the drop by guessing that among the judges for the 2003, 2012, and 2020 lists there are some younger critics who may not have had as much exposure to TBT?? But maybe not, because there are still lots and lots of oldie albums near the top of the 2020 list; maybe even older critics genuinely feel TBT has not aged as well. Hard for me to fathom, but that may just be me. Moisejp (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: It's nice to hear from you. We're Ok, so far. I was just finishing 2 part doc on effect of Cuban revolution on the rest of the globe as pandemic hit. So that was on Arte in Europe, BBC in UK, and it's available on amazon.com in US, it's called Castro's Revolution vs the World. I'm not sure what's happening next. Pandemic has thrown productions into turmoil. I haven't been terribly active on WP, I've tried to keep an eye on main BD article to stop mad edits and allegations of alcoholism. I had a burst of energy recently, after I saw a good doc about John Cohen (musician), Different Johns, I re-wrote the JC article. I think his photos and film making are really impressive.

I'm afraid I find the new Rolling Stone Top 500 baffling. I can't understand how anyone can make Abbey Road the Beatles' highest album at No. 5. It seems obvious to me that Revolver is a much better collection of songs, and was enormously influential in successfully carrying off art-rock string quartet, avant-garde electronic distortion, and Indian musical language. Sgt. Pepper was a bigger cultural moment, establishing the album as an art format. I can understand BD albums arriving in the order BOTT, H61R, BonB, It looks like boomers are upset. The Who and U2 do not make the Top 75. I guess this is the inevitable result of trying to cram an art form 70 years old into a Top 500. It seems skewed towards 21st century material. I'm happy to see Blue at No.3. This is quite an interesting essay on the whole cultural exercise [13] It would be admirable if you have the time to insert new TBT ranking into the article. Best, Mick gold (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick. I found Castro's Revolution vs the World on the US Amazon Prime and just now tried to purchase it (only 99 cents per episode), but as I suspected it doesn't let me buy it from Canada. Too bad. It doesn't seem to be available on the Canadian Amazon Prime. I read an online review in The Guardian and it sounds really interesting.

The link you sent me about the futility of R.S.'s top 500 list was interesting. I grew up reading R.S. and I know the magazine shaped my musical tastes quite a lot. I never thought of the range of music they spotlighted as being exclusionary, but just as being good, common-sense quality stuff. Reading the article gave me a bit of a different point of view. From that point of view, TBT's ranking really is not surprising at all, as I'm sure it doesn't closely match the sensibilities of people whose musical backgrounds are really different than, say, the core group of R.S. critics. Like you, I was also glad to see Blue at #3. I saw Joni Mitchell in concert in 1998 when she and Van Morrison opened for Dylan, but unfortunately she didn't play any Blue tunes. Lately I've been on Wikipedia less and less (gosh, I haven't made any content edits in over a month). But I see the top 500 list is indeed online, and (if nobody has done so already) I will try hard to fit in time to update the R.S. ranking for TBT and other articles we've worked on.

Speaking of R.S., there is a garbage dumpster by my apartment building parking lot and sometimes people throw away mildly interesting stuff, and I've gotten in the habit of peeking in out of curiosity. Until now I have never seen anything interesting enough that I actually wanted to salvage it. But the other day, I couldn't believe my eyes, somebody had thrown out (1) a 4-disc set of Bob Marley CDs, and (2) the R.S. "Cover to Cover" 4-disc CD-ROM set that has every issue from 1967–2007! I think you might have mentioned before that you had the latter. This was something I quite wanted to get when it came out, but I think decided at the time that it wasn't within my budget. I can't understand why anyone would just throw out stuff like that. Even if they don't want it, we have a table in our building here people leave books and stuff—they could have left it there—or given it to the local large thrift shop, which is only a few blocks away. Anyways, needless to say I snatched both items. UPDATE: I installed the "Cover to Cover" reader on my Mac but the application keeps quitting unexpectedly before it even gets started; on my wife's old Windows computer I'm not sure if the disc player still works, but it didn't read the reader's installer disc at all. Argh, ok, according to [[14]] newer Mac OS's don't support the set at all, and there is no patch. There is a patch for Windows. Maybe I'll try to see if I can get it to work on my wife's computer--not sure if her disc drive is the issue or not. Well, I guess that explains why someone threw this out--maybe they had a Mac or they didn't know about the Windows patch. Do you ever still use your set? Moisejp (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp: I think the point of these lists is to generate controversy and once upon a time I enjoyed arguing about lists. e.g. List Bob Dylan's best albums from 1 to 39. I guess I used to care but... Things Have Changed. The latest RS list just looks incoherent to me, and there is so much music on it I don't recognise. Would anyone try to make a list of the 500 Best Books? I will argue that Abbey Road cannot possibly be the Beatles' most significant album. I don't mind BOTT as top BD album. I also think Rough & Rowdy Ways has some wonderful material on it.

I did buy "Cover to Cover" CD-Rom set and initially I had great fun with it. I seem to remember using it to find account of BD recording with Leon Russell when we were working on WTRF. But at some point something happened in Windows software (or in the Matrix) and they simply wouldn't run. When you wrote me, I plugged in an external disc drive again and tried but... nada. Es ist kaput. Speaking of RS I remember reading avidly about the Chicago Conspiracy Trial in RS in 1969/70. I recently watched the Netflix film and it brought back lots of memories. How Bobby Seale was treated in court. How the Yippie leader and Judge Hoffman had the same surname, and occasionally Abbie Hoffman said to the Judge, "Oh, Father." The film is very wordy but I enjoyed several of the performances and the rhetoric of the time. Mick gold (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp:, I have to thank you! Your post made me go look for Windows patch for RS "Cover to Cover" and I found it here: [15] I've just installed it and it works. Now the CD-Roms are accessible again. I've been busy lately on another production, about Brazilian Narco gangs, so I'm not sure when I'll have time but I can now browse through those Rolling Stones again. Thanks for that. I'll try to send you a link to the Cuba films in an email. Best wishes Mick gold (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, how've you been? Here all's well. I didn't end up getting 1970 but am looking forward to getting the 2-disc version of Springtime in New York. I know some of the Shot of Love outtakes from the Between Saved and Shot bootleg [[16]], maybe you know it, it's a wonderful collection of tunes. Also looking forward to alternate takes including "Tight Connection" and "Blind Willie McTell". And looking forward to the upcoming 2-disc version of Tattoo You. Can't remember if I may have told you, I had tickets to see the Stones last year but the tour was postponed until this fall, but tragically Vancouver was not one of the tour dates kept; its cancellation was announced just a couple of weeks ago. I saw them 30 years ago but haven't managed to since, and wanted to see them one more time. Dunno how many tours they have left in them—Charlie Watts is I believe 80, and is actually missing this tour to recover from surgery. I hope you're well, take care. Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, looking again I see only one Between Saved and Shot track will be on the 2-disc Springtime in New York, "Don't Ever Take Yourself Away", which I believe was already released officially on the Hawaii Five-O soundtrack a few years ago. (Even the 5-disc version only has four Between songs, fewer than I thought, but anyway it's definitely too expensive for me.) Oh well, there may still be worthwhile stuff on the 2-disc. I'll have to listen to previews or excerpts closer to the release date and decide whether to get it. (Still definitely want to get the extended Tattoo You, though!) Moisejp (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Moisejp:, We're Ok. In fact we're off on vacation to Crete tomorrow so we're packing. I noticed Blind Willie McTell landed on YouTube yesterday [17] with excellent Mick Taylor on slide, and I believe there's another version which will be on sale as a 45 from Third Man Records. I'm dismayed by the price of 6CD version of Springtime, it's £120 for 5 CDs, £24 each for music recorded 40 years ago. Shocking. But I'll probably get it. I'm looking forward to "When The Night Comes Falling from the Sky" which I always thought was a great song that was done a great disservice by Arthur Baker's big shoulder pads disco production. Good to hear from you and take care Mick gold (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick. I recently opened a featured-article nomination for Aftermath (Rolling Stones album). I've noticed your name at other articles on 1960s rock music and wanted to let you know, in case you would be interested in offering a review, which would be much appreciated if you have the time and interest. Thanks. isento (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Mick gold.

I'm wondering if you ever help COI editors, of which I am one. I am attempting to help poet Larry Beckett, former lyricist partner of singer/songwriter Tim Buckley update his page. Larry is a poet who also is a songwriter. He would like to bolster the article's poetry section. He has a book 'American Cycle' being released this year - a work that has taken 47 years. Would you be able and willing to help me update his page? I would propose updates according to the COI rules on Larry's page for review, which would all be formatted correctly for addition if approved. Thank you for your consideration! Best LeepKendall (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LeepKendall I'm afraid real life is keeping me extremely busy at the moment. I do not have time to edit many WP pages which I have a strong desire to improve. I do not have time to edit Larry Beckett. Best, Mick gold (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know User:Mick gold. All the best! LeepKendall (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, I hope you're well. Earlier last year there was a small flurry of comments from SG and a couple of other editors about BD article. Where are they? I'm trying to find these comments, as I work on pruning the article. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick gold. I've been meaning to write to you, either on here or by email. I think 1970 is out. Have you had a good listen to it? How are the alternate versions of "Sarah Jane" and "Lily of the West". You're familiar with the Dylan version of each, right? As I mentioned, I really love them. I'd like to get 1970, but as I've said even if I tried to buy every box set he puts out, I'd have too little time these days to delve very deep into them. Maybe I'll get it at some point, but in the meantime do tell me how the versions of those two songs are. Possibly I can listen to snippets of them on some official online platform like Amazon or AllMusic. I still have to put the versions of SITLT in the WTRF article into a table. Possibly today if I have time, will see. Then we can add the new version.

The conversation with Sandy you were asking about can be found here [[18]]. She didn't get into too many details, and I believe she's intending to come back when she has time. Possibly you can ping her if her lack of comments are holding you back from getting far on trimming that you have time to do now. I gather she has been busy and has had some setbacks in real life. I can sympathize that tackling commenting on such a big article is not a small task. Moisejp (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, Thanks for the SandyGeorgia ref. I've continued to prune BD today and added a comment on Talk page. The situation with 1970 is odd. It's been released in USA but will not be released in UK until end of March, so I'll let you know when I've heard it. Mick gold (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

My mind is on Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, I see you're the major contributor to the "Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35" and "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" articles and have done fantastic work on them. I was thinking about tidying the articles up and adding some further information, with a view to nominating them as Good Articles, as part of my ambition to see all the Blonde on Blonde songs as GAs. Would you be interested in being a co-nominator? (This won't necessarily involve any further effort on your part; I'm happy to work on the articles and respond to reviewer comments.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BennyOnTheLoose Yes, that sounds admirable in principle. I don't seem to have as much time as I used to devote to writing/editing WP articles on Dylan but I applaud your intentions. I have a lot of books on Bob. There is a recent one on BonB, That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde [19] which I don't have and it looks useful. Good luck, I will try to help if I can. Mick gold (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I've found That Thin, Wild Mercury Sound: Dylan, Nashville, and the Making of Blonde on Blonde really helpful - Sanders has interviewed Bob Johnston, Charlie McCoy, Al Kooper, Mac Gayden, Hargus Robbins, Henry Strzelecki and Wayne Moss, amongst others, and has acccess to the 18-disc set of The Cutting Edge, which has studio dialogue etc. (My Dylan-related books are listed at User:BennyOnTheLoose/Library#Dylan.) I'll start on one of the articles shortly, and get in touch again before nominating it. On another issue, your input would be welcome at Talk:Bob_Dylan_World_Tour_1966#Tour_dates. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, I've had a go at expanding Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35. Please have a look and see what you think. (Maybe on the talk page there, so it's more visible to other editors.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BennyOnTheLoose. This is looking good. I'll try to make some constructive comments on the Talk page. Mick gold (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having responded to your points on the talk page, and added an image, I've gone ahead and nominated "Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35" as a GA. There's a large GA backlog at the moment, including three other Blonde on Blonde songs, so I'm not expecting it to be picked up very soon. Obviously nominating it is no barrier to further improvements being made in the meantime - I'll keep an eye on the talk page. I've sent you something by Paul Williams, that I think could be useful for Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, via Wikipedia Email. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for nominating RDW. I'll have a look at the Paul Williams email. Best wishes for 2023. Mick gold (talk) 09:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mick: Passing along the following notification I received from BennyOnTheLoose: I've started a topic at Talk:Bob_Dylan_World_Tour_1966#Tour_dates, and thought you might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Allreet (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed Benny attached the invite above. Please forgive the redundancy. Allreet (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Best wishes for the holidays
		Wishing you and yours the best over the holiday season. Ceoil (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Holocaust in Poland and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GeneralNotability (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands for comments about the article, and Talk:Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.

Hi Mick, I added this manually as the bot only notifies one nominator. Thanks for all your excellent work on the article, it really made a difference. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mick gold,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mick, now that all of the Blonde on Blonde tracks are good articles, I'm thinking about my next Dylan project (I'm torn between Highway 61 Revisited and Blood on the Tracks songs). In parallel to that, how would you feel about either "Rainy Day Women ♯12 & 35" or "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" going forward as a featured article candidate? As with the GA nominations, I'm happy to respond to the review comments, but wouldn't proceed without you as co-nominator (or without your blessing). If you're happy with this, let me know which you prefer to go forward first. I'll check for any significant new sources, given how much stuff on Dylan is being published. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BennyOnTheLoose. Shall we try our luck with "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands"? It's an intriguing song. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to contribute but I'm happy to support you and do as much as I am able. Best, Mick gold (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Mick gold! The article you nominated, Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Lasting for over 11 minutes, Bob Dylan’s song "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands" occupied an entire side of his 1966 double album Blonde on Blonde. It has polarised music critics." - I wonder why the title in the infobox is like in the official audio, but the article is different. No topic for the next three days, - never even think about moving an article while linked from the Main page. - Sad eyes - I mourn the death of Vami_IV, and this image - given to him with thanks for GA Gates of Heaven Synagogue two days before he died - was taken on a cemetery returning from a funeral last year. It pictures a promise, - let's work on the articles he left under construction. -- (forgot to sign)

The image commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page, and Vami_IV. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A great resource! I'm using the bibliography at the moment to pin down the release date for John Wesley Harding. Earlier this year an editor changed the infobox date to December 17, 1967 based on one source and then the fact no citations had been provided for December 27. Based on what I've found, I plan to revert the change.

One suggestion for the bibliography. Have you considered using "masks" instead of repeating the names of authors who have multiple works? Masking makes the listings easier to read, giving the page a cleaner look. For example:

• Marcus, Greil (1997). Invisible Republic: Bob Dylan's Basement Tapes. Picador. ISBN 0-330-33624-X.
• —— (2005). Like a Rolling Stone: Bob Dylan at the Crossroads. PublicAffairs. ISBN 1-58648-382-X.
• —— (2013). Bob Dylan by Greil Marcus: Writings 1968–2010. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1610391993.
• Markhorst, Jochen (2020). Blonde On Blonde: Bob Dylan's mercurial masterpiece. Independently published. ISBN 979-8629122043.
• —— (2020). Blood on the Tracks: Dylan's Masterpiece in Blue. Independently published. ISBN 979-8629525448.
• Marqusee, Mike (2005). Wicked Messenger: Bob Dylan and the 1960s. Seven Stories Press. ISBN 1-58322-686-9.

Anyway, I didn't want to take the liberty of changing the article without asking. But if you like this approach, let me know, and I'd be happy to do the "grunt" work.

How ya doin'? I've been retired about five years, and more recently I've been working on a few American history pages, one of which was the Bibliography of slavery in the United States. Which is what brought the masking approach to mind.

I'm also devoting more time to my radio show as well as projects related to our house which just about dates to the Revolution. So little time, so much to do. Or to put that another way: I wake up in the morning, fold my hands and pray for rain... You now the rest. Allreet (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allreet. Good to hear from you. Your suggestion about “masks” for the Bob Dylan bibliography is a good one. Please go ahead and make the changes.

I’m also sort of retired. I was a freelance TV producer but I haven’t produced anything this year, so that is nature’s way of telling me to slow down! We’ve acquired our first grandchild and I’d like to do more travelling. I’m hoping to visit Vietnam which I’ve been thinking about for the last 55 years – since the Tet offensive in 1968.

The words that go through my mind each morning aren’t from Bob but Leonard Cohen: "The birds, they sang at the break of day. Start again I heard them say." You probably know the feeling, I've retired but I've never been busier. All best wishes Mick gold (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto on the above concerning retirement and the like, except for grandchildren—my daughter's 32 and in no hurry—and Vietnam. On the latter I still think of that sorry chapter, usually accompanied by Bruce Cockburn's "Rocket Launcher."

Regarding the masks, consider it done, in a matter of days. And thanks for the reminder of the line from "Anthem." More hopeful words to live by and pass on. Best to you as well. Allreet (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finished what I could. Listings need full cites at some point, but that's just part of general cleanup, nothing that interferes with usefulness. Now to get ready for Christmas with family and friends. Hope your holidays are joyous as well. Allreet (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Allreet and All best wishes for holidays and 2024. Mick gold (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]