Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:46, 31 December 2009

• Please replace {{Misplaced Pages:WikiOgre/topicon}} with {{WikiOgre}}

Jerry Sloan

It's sourced, so I'm fine with letting the statement stand. But if you don't mind, I'll mention parenthetically that it was measured over his last three seasons. This is just so the reader understands that it is not a typical "career" stat, and is contrary to the usual qualification standard (e.g., see ). In all likelihood, I would expect his true career average was higher since the tabulation only occurred as his career was winding down. — Myasuda (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

McCartney/Lennon

You edited the Please Please Me page and provided this edit summary, "'Lennon/McCartney' was the original credit; certainly listing as 'McCartney/Lennon' for the first album is ridiculous." That is not correct, and not ridiculous. For their early singles, and their first UK album, McCartney's name came first. The consensus opinion among the many editors who edit Beatle-related articles is to show the credits in the order they appeared on the original UK releases. As a result, I have reverted your edit.

I agree with some of your other recent edits were you have made the track listing sections for later albums consistent by always using "Lennon/McCartney". I think other editors were trying to be explicit about which Lennon and which McCartney, but I don't think that's necessary. In any case, the album articles ought to be consistent. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Journey

Thanks for contributing to this entry. I have no problem with the substance of your edits yesterday, just with the use of "minor." "Believin'" vs. "Believing" and the "Legacy and Influences" section have both been discussed in the talk page ("To G, or not to G" and "Legacy Section"--the latter being archived). Both of these edits were substantive, not minor (although the third edit, catching one additional G, was minor). Dave Golland (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, they were substantive rather than minor edits, and I'll not mark larger edits such as these as minor in the future. "Believing" to "Believin'" had to be purged after I forced the page change, and that I thought was minor as it was just changing one incorrect name to the correct one (despite the number of times it had to be changed). As far as my other edit, it was a major change to the article, but it needed to be removed as opinionated, unreferenced, etc. Should not have marked as a minor edit at all. Thanks... Doc9871 (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to tell me what you are talking about?

Journey "Niceness" You can "yipe yipe yipe" all day, but it won't help. Experienced editors tire of these whinings very quickly, and crave only entries from contributors with BALLS, not cherrystones. Don't be that guy who needs to be drop-kicked like an insufferable lap-dog. Try also not to be too offended by edits that may hurt your precious feelings, but simply happen to coincide with the truth...

In short: toughen up, or be prepared to cry yourself to sleep on a daily/nightly basis. This isn't for kindergarteners...

"I've got your name... I've got your ass!!!" Doc9871 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I copied and pasted this. This is what was found on my user talk. It was written by you today. I feel that you owe me a specific explanation as to what this all means. I consider this to be harrassment. Especially since I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you talking about a particular edit? What is it with these remarks? Would you kindly be specific? Runt (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Runt, I sincerely apologize. I'd didn't even intend to send this to you in the first place, and it was just a draft of something that got accidentally sent. I certainly don't want you to feel harassed or threatened, and I in know way have any problem with you or your edits. My language was exceedingly harsh, and I was venting about something stupid that I would have edited later were I to send it at all. Please accept my sincere and embarrassed apology, and rest assured you'll not see a post like this again... Doc9871 (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, Runt, I certainly never meant for you to cancel your user page. You seem to have made quite a few edits, and I made a simple mistake. Don't cancel yourself like that. Sorry, chief... Doc9871 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

talkback

"Fresh Start" For the Eagles...

Only recently did I read this article in depth and my first reaction was that it was too far gone to save but maybe the time is right to get it corrected. The discussion should continue so the "Eagles is" proponents will have to make a valid, logical argument supporting their view (which will be impossible). Verb usage is not debatable and could be changed immediately without controversy but it might be better to tackle it all in one revision. Perhaps some examples from books or major newspapers and music magazines showing the prevailing use of "the Eagles" will be convincing. I already cited several interviews on the talk page where the band members consistently refer to themselves as "the Eagles" and so far there hasn't been any response from anyone arguing against. More examples from respected publications should help. Piriczki (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I also have seen zero convincing arguments from "Eagles is" (I like that) "proponents". I only see the change made, with the reasoning "The band's name is Eagles.", or, "No 'The' in band's title." Nothing more, and either no one from that camp is paying attention to the talk page, or they lack ability to assemble a reasonable argument (which, as you point out, cannot succeed). More people are chiming in on the right side, so perhaps this will snowball and the "flat-earthers" will see the curvature. Experimental changes, followed by noting who reverts them and contacting them, is the first step in at least getting the opposition to organize itself. And further examples from more reputable sources can only help... Doc9871 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:RMeisner1977.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RMeisner1977.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've done what you've asked, and hopefully we can keep this historically irreplaceable image on WP... Doc9871 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artist template colour

After replying to the talk page, I looked into this a little more. The current location of the code that handles the template background colour is here:

Template:Infobox musical artist/color

The section of documentation that needs changing, is also in a page by itself, located here:

Template:Infobox musical artist/doc/type

This documentation cleverly references the colour-choosing code, so that if someone changes the background colour for any value, the documentation immediately changes. A neat idea, but harder to experiment with. What you would have to do, to propose the change, is:

(1) copy the "color" page to a personal sub-page, and add a new value and colour. Actually, the contents of this page are quite simple, so it should be easy for a non-technical person to do. I had suggested the new colour could be pink; try hex code "FFCCCC" for pale pink.

(2) copy the "doc/type" page to another personal sub-page, and change the documentation to the proposed instructions. Add a new line to the chart of examples, and you should only need to point to your other new sub-page for the line(s) with new or changed colours.

(3) when it's all ready, transclude the second sub-page to the template talk page, as your proposal.

If it sounds to you like I've done this kind of thing before, you're sadly mistaken! But if you want, I can give it a try. Since it's YOUR suggestion, I didn't want to do it without checking with you, if you would rather figure it out yourself. (Or if you're thinking of chickening out.) If I were to attempt it, I would be creating sub-pages of your user page, not mine, so you can take credit for it (or take the blame if I screw it up). Also, I'm not going to do the actual visible rewriting of the instructions; that's your baby. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your interest and excellent advice on this matter. While a quick check of my edit history clearly shows that I never shy away from a fight, and am "aggressive" to say the least, this is truly a massive change, and I'd probably be "in a world of shit" if I tried to implement it in a "rogue" fashion (which I'd prefer ;>). I'm trying the other option first - garnering heavy political support before submitting a proposal that cannot be defeated. Old alliances will emerge, and this change will come soon. Please keep me informed of your opinion (& BTW: credit is never something I take for myself, as I'm nothing without those who help)... Doc9871 (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

I am glad some editors share my view about the "writer" field! () — John Cardinal (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime, John. I'm 100% behind official credit in the Infobox, for all artists. The Hey Jude "credit battle" is logically over; now random IP users attempt to sneak it in (sour grapes perhaps?). We both know it's not going work that easily, however ;> Keep up the good work... Doc9871 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no evidence either way, but I don't suspect any of the named editors who had the opposite point of view. It is odd that IPs have begun to drift in and redo the edit, but perhaps the smoke that emanates from the various discussions draws them in... — John Cardinal (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just kidding about "sour grapes"; I know the dissenting editors involved in the "Jude" discussion wouldn't stoop that low. I find the general level of intelligent editing to be well above average for The Beatles, which is appropriate for, in my opinion, pretty much the best band that ever was (well, after Milli Vanilli at least) ;>

I'm wondering what you think about a substantially major Infobox change I'm working on (see most recent discussion on Template talk:Infobox musical artist). I'm not the first who's tried this, and I'm trying to get as much feedback as possible from good editors before I propose a change, as I want it to pass. I would value your opinion on this, whether it's for or against the "proposed proposal". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney

It's pretty simple: cite all information you add. That's all I ask. If you want, I can recommend some Beatles books. If you need help citing sources, see Misplaced Pages:Citing sources. It's poor form to include blocks of uncited text in an article, and it falls to you to provide sources if you want to keep that info in the article; see WP:BURDEN. If you want, you can write out a revision of the page first on a user page, then move it to the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the editing advice. It's not my "first day", but I'll take it in stride. I was 16 when "The One I Love" hit the airwaves, and remember it well (didn't know 'til recently you were an R.E.M. fan; I have every album and have always loved 'em). You are absolutely correct about blocks of uncited text, and that won't happen again. No problems here... Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I never meant to get off on the wrong foot with you. I've written several Featured Articles on Misplaced Pages, so I know a thing or two about writing music articles. I'm always willing to help people work on music articles. If you ever want advice or help, feel free to ask me. I also have access to a lot of sources. Need help verifying something? I'm always happy to do some research. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool! We're all here for the same reasons; to improve the site and educate those who access it by providing them with factual information. You and I never really had a problem; you showed me my mistake and I corrected it. I have a thick skin, and learn from more experienced editors like yourself (& then from my own mistakes), rather than pout and react negatively. I would always rather end an edit war than engage in one before it even was warranted.

I just may take you up on your offer of help, especially with the Eagles, and possibly Journey, as both are hugely commercially successful and deserving of FA status. Peace ... Doc9871 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have access to Rock's Back Pages, which is a website that reprints old music press articles. And as you may have gathered, I. have a lot of R.E.M. books. I purposely designed R.E.M. to act as a template for music band FAs. Take a look at it. Not every article will have the same layout, but it's representative of what we should be trying to achieve with articles on highly-popular and written-about rock bands. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Very well done article - believe me, I've seen it before, as I'm a big R.E.M. fan. I especially love the 132 references! If this treatment could be achieved with the Eagles (the #1 best-selling American band ever), the Misplaced Pages music articles would only gain further credence. I've been working sporadically on Eagles stuff... I should first ask if you are a fan of the band? BTW - my absolute favorite R.E.M. song "you never hear about" is "Wendell Gee". Freaking gorgeous... Doc9871 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really into the Eagles, althought I like radio staples "Hotel California" and "Life in the Fast Lane". I'm more partial to Journey, actually. Personally, I generally favor bands with strong melodies and heavy emphasis on guitar (particulary if it's distorted). So my favorite artists include Beatles, Nirvana, Husker Du, Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day, Led Zeppelin, R.E.M., although there are some exceptions (bass is more often than not the lead instrument in Joy Division, Prince will use whatever he wants as a means to an end, and Depeche Mode is at its best when they are completely electronic). I'm sure they should have at least two or three well-researched biographies available on the Eagles. Finding well-sourced biographies is key when writing band articles; the author will done most of the heavy work for you, combing through old articles and reviews and summarizing them. As for my favorite underappreciated R.E.M. song, that's "Harborcoat". The way Buck plays on the verses is awesome. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Harborcoat" is excellent. Love the first EP stuff, esp. "Wolves, Lower" and "Carnival of Sorts (Box Cars)". I was a huge Nirvana fan ever since they came out during my sophomore year in college, and they were a huge influence on my personal musical taste. Prince is a musical artist almost worthy of his own category (like Frank Zappa).

And by the way, R.E.M. is a perfect illustration of the problems concerning The Beatles crediting problems. R.E.M. always credited their compositions as "Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe" (in alphabetical order), regardless of who wrote the bulk of any given song. Lennon/McCartney was arguably the prototype for this "unselfishness" of credit? Perhaps... Doc9871 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The main difference is that there's so much research on the Beatles it's quite well-documented who actually authored what in many cases. In R.E.M.'s case, all the band members generally did the write the songs together (and Stipe always writes his lyrics and comes up with his vocal parts), while solo compositions are largely exceptions (for example, Mike Mills wrote "{Don't Go Back to) Rockville" and Bill Berry wrote "Everybody Hurts"). But I don't want to get back into that again . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We're all good. Everything is copacetic, and I'm certain we will both only aid in improving WP. Cheers, mate :> Doc9871 (talk) 06:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Eagles and Journey

If you want, I can give you my detailed critique on where these pages need improvement. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely would want! As I said, I'm more interested in the Eagles, but seeing as I forced the Don't Stop Believin' correction change, I'm obviously wanting both bands to make it to FA as quickly as possible. Any feedback (& help) would be greatly appreciated not only by me, but for all others who want to see correct information. Keep me posted... Doc9871 (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, to start, familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages:Summary style. This will help you focus on creating concise, well-written prose. You are always writing for a general audience, not hardcore fans. So in the lead section, you want to explain the groups for those who have never heard of them. Start out general, then ease the reader into specifics. For example, if a band it noted for contributing to specific rock subgenres, I start out with "Soandso is a American rock band formed in . . ." Then I list the menbers describe the band's sound, etc. You will need three to five paragraphs, depending on the length of the article. The lead section is supposed to reflect the contents of the article (as a result you shouldn't require citations in the lead, except in special circumstances), so I usually leave that last after I've written everything else. Never start out with how great they are by listing sales and awards out of the gate (why should the readers care if they have no idea about the band in the first place?). WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, always keep in mind which details are better suited for subarticles like pages on albums or songs. With these more specifc items, only include what is necessary for context. For an example, note how I wrote about the R.E.M. albums in that article. I detailed only what was necessary for context (recording process, the year of release, any specific musical traits that are pivotal in that point in the band's career, and notable hits). There's no superfluous specific details; that's why you have links to the album pages. At most you want a pararaph on an album; if you're writing more than that, you're probably including too much specific information that belongs in the album page. Compare the paragraph on Reckoning with Reckoning (R.E.M. album) (which I also wrote). That's why summary style is great; it keeps you focused on the true topic of the article, which is the band, not the band's albums, songs, music, awards, etc. At the end of the day, that's the focus: the band as a whole. Remember that, and you'll avoid bogging the article down with miscellanea and trivia. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, you see that three paragraph section on Desperado? That can easily be condensed to one. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This pitifully unreferenced section is soon to disappear. Unreferenced and poorly written. Gotta go to real-life work, but will correct this section soon... Doc9871 (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How's about throwing me back a Barnstar?! It'll be my first, and you can pick anyone you want. I'm still absorbing the info... Doc9871 (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's how you format citations: Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#How to format citations. Personally, I'd recommend avoiding the cite templates. it's much easier and less cluttered if you format everything yourself. WesleyDodds (talk)

By the way, do you need help with this pages anytime soon? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't Stop Believin' is still the first article I would love to get to FA, esp. with its huge recent popularity (& since I insisted it be correct, without the "g" at the end). I've sent 2 e-mails to Allmusic about their incorrect spelling of the song title in their article body, but correct spelling elsewhere on the site; I've had no response. Take a look at DSB' on WP if you have time and let me know what you think. Thanks, Wesley... Doc9871 (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed Allmusic before to fix some stuff but they've never implemented it. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pow! Biff! Sock!

Your user page is on my watchlist because I posted a message to you before. I notice you added this notice on your page:

I reported myself as a suspected sock puppet of myself to see if I turned up on the list of Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets. Sure enough, I'm on the considerably massive list. The ease with which one can level accusations of "sockpuppetry" needs to be seriously re-examined...

That happens because the template automatically adds you to the list. Really, what would be the point of adding that template, if it didn't show up somewhere so that someone could look at it? You will remain on the list until you or someone else removes the template from your page. This isn't a good test to see if anyone noticed, because someone may have seen it, figured out you were doing a test, and left it as is. In fact, I noticed it when you tagged yourself, and thought it might be an experiment. As for the "ease" at which anyone can make an accusation, what would be the benefit of making it difficult or impossible to make an accusation? We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and anyone can report suspected hanky panky too. It's just user pages, not articles, and it's hardly a defamation of character. So you can post anything you like here, if you're bored and have nothing better to do, which as you can see describes me right now. :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Zowie!! Thanks for commenting; I saw one editor accused of being three(!) separate sock puppets; and I went "overboard". I'm not "for" making it "impossible" to accuse these insidious animators of footwear, but I truly feel for the "investigators of sockpuppetry", who are overburdened with frivolous accusations (like mine). I choose to remain on the list of suspected sock puppets for now; it only reaffirms my good feelings about puppets in general.

"There's no Messiah here! There's a mess alright, but no Messiah!" Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw that triple template too! I also saw that the person who made it, get hit with a counter-accusation of being a sock of one of the same people in his accusation. (That template was posted by an anon IP, but even so, it could be true, because the person who made the 3 accusations is a "newbie" who knows too much to be a newbie. I'm sure it's all very intriguing... to someone who cares!) :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I have no problem with this edit, but in general, you aren't supposed to edit talk page entries by other editors. Another editor might object, so it's probably best to let bad grammar/spelling stand on talk pages. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Heh... sorry 'bout that. You're absolutely right; the grammar teacher in me just took over for a wild moment. Won't happen again :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes & well-meaning editors

Thanks for the note, but I am anticipating the discussion has now died. The two supporters have studiously avoided responding to my last post, when I pointed out, quite clearly one specific issue. I must admit I was having a little fun, instead of giving all the reasons why it doesn't work in one go, I was going to roll them out one by one. OTOH these kind of arguments are precisely the reason I avoided the music parts of WP for so long. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• You argue very well, and certainly should not avoid the music articles, which tend to be the most in need of "correction". I hope you are right about this particular discussion dying, but methinks it may have a last gasp or two before... mercifully... it will die... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You were right, it has raised it's ugly head as a second proposal. Hopefully I have kicked it to death with my clown boots. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The squeaky clown shoes, right, not just the oversized variety? The second proposal is not as perversely dangerous as the first, but it could (hah!) pave the way for further nightmares, and is unnecessary at best. Neither prop will get to a vote, and let's hope we've encouraged the supporters to concentrate on "better" things. If this discussion persists, I may have to bring out the "big guns" - and this would fare poorly for the opposition, by ending it, and quickly. Shhh! I've said too much already... the walls have ears... Doc9871 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the second proposal is a step towards the first proposal, a little more thought and if the proposers had nominated in reverse order they might have cleared the board. Why does fandom rhyme with random? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's next? Slapping a {rfctag|prop} tag on it to get more consensus before closing the discussion as "No consensus" or "Failed"? Pointing the opposition to the "Points important in reaching consensus" on the WP:Policies and Guidelines page - all the points this prop does NOT meet? Asking Mediation Cabal for advice? Of just debate and debate and debate, getting absolutely nowhere? What do you think? I don't know about you, but this is getting downright annoying and pathetic at this point... Doc9871 (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a 10-point plan. as per CfD Country songs by songwriter. I expected lots of blood over that one, but it went through easy-peasy. A little silence from me in the meanwhile will not go amiss. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy molé! Now THAT was a 13-step clown-boot "stomp" waltz. Very well-written and referenced! This may quiet things down long enough for it to fail through lack of consensus. Howeeeever... I hate to tell you this, but I'm thinking of "flopping" over to the "Support" side now, because you didn't really convince me enough... yet... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What inspired me into action was the guy who claimed to have studied UK copyright law, if he had, he would have known he did not need to tell us he studied "UK copyright law." Speaking of feet, he shot himself there! Sorry to hear you might change sides, in which case I might have to review my own situation. And there was me thinking I might just have managed a knockout punch. How about an proposal regarding song genres as per my CfD above? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as genres go, I'm not a fan of trying to meticulously categorize bands into "genres" that the bands themselves would laugh at (Jethro Tull winning 1989 Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock/Metal Performance Vocal or Instrumental)? Aren't they "art rock"? Maybe "Medieval-sounding Progressive Art Rock" should be a "genre". Sure, I organize my iTunes songs by these lame genre tags, for convenience. But, really, just what the hell is Industrial music??! Music to be played to factory workers? And I stay away from The Beatles skirmishes concerning whether or not an album of theirs falls into the "psychedelic", "baroque pop", etc. genre. Too much headache, with constant reverts.

As for the current question concerning listing, e.g., Fever (1956 song) as Fever (Madonna song)... a bit complicated. I certainly support the proposed proposal, and would love to smash the Madonna page to pieces. And... oh, crap. A certain member of the opposition is digging up that old corpse again... Respond to this latest affront, and I'll get back to you... Doc9871 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read my CfD for "country songs by songwriter" which stated that genres are about arrangement, not songwriters, as a song can be done in many different styles, therefore the category had to go and it did. As far as I am concerned the wider genres are OK, rock, classical, latin, etc, but the rest are merely marketing tools to explain why this or that performer are different. Maybe we can get Wesley to sort it out, I am not going there...

I agree regarding disambig, which is why I said I was happy to change my mind, I don't actually like by date, but I can't think of a better alternative. Whatever is decided it will have to be compromise. Pls go over and support the merge proposition for Fever... I have responded to Wesley, he's obviously not paying any attention so he and go and argue with himself. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They can go and argue amongst themselves, they are patently not paying attention to anything written that does not support their POV. It's not going to go through - there are precedences which can be used. Concensus cannot be reached. I'm gonna sit it out until armistice day, barring a minor edit on one of my posts. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Postscript. Remember countries have gone to war over "wee tunes of maize construction" --Richhoncho (talk) 13:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Credits

Right You are correct that R.E.M. credit themselves as (Berry/)Buck/Mills/Stipe, but this says to use their proper names. However they credit themselves is secondary to how Misplaced Pages chooses to style or present that information. Please respond on my talk if you need me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What he said. The practice in tracklisting sections is to write out the songwriters' proper names, with Wikilinks. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Song Infoboxes should list official credits, or is my (Don't Go Back To) Rockville edit gonna get chopped, too? Doc9871 (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's best and most logical to link to the people, which is why I hate the Lennon/McCartney link in Beatles infoboxes, because really it should link to John Lennon and Paul McCartney. Smiths songs don't link to "Morrissey/Marr", after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to the individual "people" on R.E.M singles; but instead of "Bill Berry/Peter Buck/Mike Mills/Michael Stipe", it's Berry/Buck/Mills/Stipe. Or, Berry, Buck, Mills, Stipe. Or Berry Buck Mills Stipe. Or Buck, Mills, Stipe. The official way the band credited it; and it depends on the album in this particular band's case. You have got to see by these examples that the artist chooses how their writing credit is listed, even within the same band, with the same members. John and Paul did the same thing by incorporating Lennon/McCartney as a songwriting entity, and it's not for us layman WP editors to comment that, for instance, "Yesterday" was probably written in entirety by McCartney. Who doesn't know that Lennon wrote not a bit of that particular song? Yet, it will always (and must always) be listed as a Lennon/McCartney composition, and we can do nothing about it. That's how songwriting credits work, and I'm not about to second-guess how Paul and John hashed it out.

If "Morrissey/Marr" were one-one millionth as influential a songwriting partnership as Lennon/McCartney, perhaps they would have a special place. Unfortunately for them, they couldn't hold Ringo's jockstrap on their best day. Sorry - that's just the way it is... Doc9871 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well-established that "Yesterday" is a solo McCartney composition. Just sayin'. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If by "established" you mean he's the only one who sings on it, references can be found to back up the fact he wrote it alone, and everyone on earth intrinsically just knows it's a McCartney song - you are correct, sir. For No One is similar in this respect, obviously. But, if by "established' you mean that it can be credited to Paul McCartney alone and not to Lennon/McCartney, (buzzer sound) you are incorrect, good sir. Again, John and Paul wanted their songs to be ambiguously credited to the pair, and they set up that arrangement long ago. Only towards the end of The Beatles and after was there "fussing and fighting" about it, mostly on Paul's part in later years. WP cannot, in good conscience, credit Lennon alone for (e.g.) Across the Universe, or Paul alone for (e.g.) I Will in the Infoboxes. Because despite what we all know about who really wrote what, in their baffling wisdom, Paul and John credited all their joint compositions during The Beatles' immaculate reign as "Lennon/McCartney" (well, "McCartney/Lennon" in the very beginning). So, yes, it's "established" that Paul wrote "Yesterday" (references should be cited in the body), and no, we can't rightly credit him alone for the song, because of his prior arrangement with John. Weird, huh? Cheers...  :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about what the songwriting credit should be. I mean there's plenty of sources where Paul says he wrote it alone. And I'm pretty sure John confirmed it, too. That's a simple verifiable detail. That's where Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy comes into play. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Gacy and crime articles

I often remove the article subject's name from captions. It isn't at all necessary (which may be what I said). As for the retirement. I still monitor some of the articles on my watchlist, mostly because the ones I watch are prime targets for vandalism, or to tidy something up. Other than that, I've quit actively working on the articles outside of that. You might have noticed the health issues notice and that is why I'm not working actively on the articles - it's just too stressful right now. I've also been very active in WP:CRIME as a project and by being "retired", it keeps me from getting questions or comments from that project. I'm currently busily working on a couple actor articles to soon nominate them for good article status. I find that relaxing. In any case, I hope I soon feel more like tackling crime articles besides watching for vandals. How's that? Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• Again, like I said, I meant no offense, and I hope you recover from your illness. I actually didn't see the medical post at the top of your page before I sent my message, and I truly didn't mean to upset you. Also as I said, you are clearly a very accomplished and well-respected editor, which is why I made the "Retirement" query. Do not retire! You are not retired from making good edits, wherever they may be... Doc9871 (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. I appreciate your kind words and sentiments. I haven't completely retired, I'm just taking a "little breather" from active crime article work. A mini-vacation, if you will. Thanks again. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:BLeadonModern.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BLeadonModern.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

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

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 09:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix Mugshot

I disagree profoundly, so I'm raising it elsewhere. David T Tokyo (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've raised it with an administrator I've occasionally discussed issues with. His initial view is that he "tends towards rejecting any claimed "encyclopedic purpose", despite its availability. Classic WP:UNDUE, I think." Would you care to argue the case for keeping it there on the page? If so, you can do so at RodHullandemu. Thanks David T Tokyo (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind changing the caption to say he was acquitted, but it makes it cumbersome, spilling down into the next section. It's no secret that Jimi liked his drugs, and this was a drug arrest that was a pretty big deal at the time (I mean, he did go to trial for it and all, and he was a famous U.S. citizen arrested in a foreign country). It's not emblazoned across the top of the article with the caption, "Criminal!!!" on it, but merely a thumbnail to the side of the section that mentions the arrest (which I did not write). Of course it is historically irreplaceable by WP criteria, and I feel there is no UNDUE weight in its inclusion in the article. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Doc, I've replied and Rod's replied again - you might want to do the same. Let's see if we can come a decision on this. Thanks. David T Tokyo (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded as well. I've been through this all before, and here's how it goes: nothing I say is going to convince either of you of anything, and vice-versa. We bicker until someone ups the ante (which I invited you to do). A proposal is created. You get your friends to vote, and I get mine. Consensus is not reached. Proposal is eventually closed through lack of consensus or inactivity (and lack of consensus). Do we really need to go through all that? Doc9871 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on my talkpage. I have responded on the article's talkpage, where the whole discussion should be for the wider consumption of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

More I think about it, I don't like the whole section. Howabout moving the drug related parts up to "drug use" and with references? The rest can be deleted as unreferenced. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I obviously agree the section should be referenced, and well. I like how it fits into the timeline of the article, but I'm not married to that idea either. My main concern is preserving this photo as one of the very limited free images of this iconic figure that are available out there (and illustrating an important event in his life). Thanks again for your voice... Doc9871 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gram Parsons

Yes, I'd seen that you'd uploaded a picture of Gram – good work! Gram does indeed rock. As far as adding further images, I'm no expert but I think that the use of copyrighted images on Misplaced Pages is generally frowned upon. I don't know whether you're familiar with it but there's some good info on Misplaced Pages image policy on WP:IUP. Of course, one picture, to show the subject for encyclopedic purposes, like you've done, is probably acceptable but I think it'll be hard to justify adding other copyrighted images to the article. As far as non- copyrighted, public domain images relating to Parsons go, I know that Misplaced Pages Commons (found here) has some shots of the hotel room where he died. Maybe there's some other suitable, GP related images to be found there too.

Sometimes you have to use a little imagination; I've recently been heavily involved in getting the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article up to WP:GA status and I was a bit stuck for images. I found a free pic of Roger McGuinn on Misplaced Pages Commons but I also wanted something directly connected with The Byrds during the Sweetheart period. After some thinking and searching I finally managed to find a picture of Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, which is where the Grand Ole Opry was held at the time when The Byrds played on the show. As I say, sometimes you just have to think outside the box a little bit where images are concerned. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Always think outside the box - otherwise we'd have a fan-site here (which so many perpetuate... I just wanna wrap their heads around a pole and... oh, sorry. I was "thinking out loud".) I've added both of Morrison's mug shots to The Doors page, and recently had a very mild and civil argument with an editor about keeping my Jimi Hendrix mug photo in the article. Mug shots are just one source of historical data, as are "promotional material" images. They are free, historically irreplaceable, and citable. I like your creative way of seeing this, and certainly laud your excellent contributions to the Country rock portion of WP. I brought Randy Meisner from "Start" class to "C" class (better than Frey even has currently), and always keep my eye out for artists from this era. Good work... Doc9871 (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox musical artists associated acts

Thanks for backing me up in replying to JBsupreme. You said you wouldn't come back to the discussion, but now I've given him a long explanation of how he should go about preparing to fix problems he finds, and suggested he use a sandbox to prepare an explanation of his first change and have us review it before he goes ahead. It's likely he'll find this task too daunting, but you may wish to keep an eye on it and see if he is seriously interested, and follows my suggestion. If so, I think he would welcome encouragement from you or me or anyone. I like to assume good faith against the odds, don't I? :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look out for him. I used to be quite an ornery, sarcastic and condescending editor at first (and sometimes I still am), but I generally quieted my tone and learned to be more of a "team-player", after both constructive advice and "self-evaluation". I prefer to assume good faith as well :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BernardLeadon1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BernardLeadon1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Philspector2009.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Philspector2009.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Electra Records

Fortunately, feelings are not what guides the project. You can see here why it is a worthy redirect to keep. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. Perhaps an exact reasoning under here, please? Should we recreate Parlaphone, so that people who don't know how to spell it continue to know not how to spell it? Or should we turn this page into what you see when you enter "parlaphone" (e.g.) as a search; "did you mean elektra records?" That is how it should be done, sir... Doc9871 (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Both reasons #2 and #5 apply here. Could you find the exact page that was deleted, because Parlaphone has never existed. I would like to ask the admin who deleted that page their reasoning, because misspelling redirects should be kept. There are over 9400 pages that are redirects from misspellings, and why else would {{R from misspelling}} exist? It also makes a difference that this page has existed for over 5 years. I admit that I am a new admin, but if you can find some guideline saying that this page should be deleted, I'll reconsider. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, 9400 pages redirected from misspellings is hardly a reason to justify their existence! They are misspellings. If the proper spelling were the only alternative, there would one less page to add to that sad statistic. You may be a new admin, but you are an admin, and I respect your authority. I can't cite a specific guideline at this time, but I like to "think outside the box" and let common sense prevail. Keeping Electra Records because some people misspell it is counterproductive to what educating WP readers is about, when educating them to the legally, historically accurate Elektra Records is so close to our reach... Doc9871 (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not justifying misspellings in general, I'm just trying to show that this is the way things are done, whether or not either of us agrees with it. I could understand your reasoning if the information was duplicated on both pages, but since it redirects, people can see the correct spelling at that time. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the information was duplicated on both pages, it would truly be a travesty, as there is no "Electra Records" in the first place, and it shouldn't have a page. Do you not see the beauty of there being no "Parlaphone" to direct one to the correct Parlophone? There is no "Parlaphone", as there is no "Electra Records". It is 100% crystal clear to me... Doc9871 (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would like to see which page you are referring to, as Parlaphone has never existed. And I'm sorry I can't do anything about the guidelines of the project. There are some I disagree with also. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally went through every page on WP that listed "Parlaphone" and corrected it to Parlophone. I don't know or really care if a "Parlaphone" page existed; now no search of "Parlaphone" on WP will bring you anywhere except "did you mean parlophone"?. This is what I started to do with Elektra Records, until you decided that the "Electra Records" page should remain. Reasons #2 and #5 that you cited do not adequately justify keeping this article, and research towards elimination of "Electra Records" continues. Thank you... Doc9871 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

OIC. Well that's a completely different situation. If you are talking about fixing back links to the redirect page, then you should read this page. But I could understand wanting to correct those typos so that people are not misinformed. The 9 pages should not take long to fix. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the pages on the list you provided that could be fixed (couldn't find the incorrect "Electra" on Waddy Wachtel's page, for instance). I gotta go for now - we'll finish this issue later :> Doc9871 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The three remaining pages are all linked as ]. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay... the rest of the pages (except for our two and the page of the bot that registered my first attempt at deletion) are all free from the erroneous "Electra Records". I've done the dog-faced grunt work, just like I did with "Parlaphone". Sorry I didn't tell you right off the bat how I got rid of that redirect; I thought you guys had a way of seeing that.

So, can we now just eliminate the redirect and the "Electra Records" "article", now that there is no page mentioning it? I eagerly await your reply... Doc9871 (talk) 07:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Knowing the policy, I can't do that, but if you feel like tagging the page again, I'll leave it to another administrator to decide, although their response should be the same. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured. Been a tough first week, I imagine. Don't want to ruffle too many feathers too soon, right?. I appreciate your help with the list of remaining faulty entries, and I'll obviously finish this elsewhere. Predicting what other admins "should" do is never a safe bet, btw. Consensus can always change, even among the "higher-ups". Good luck to you, and thanks again... Doc9871 (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

(I was invited here by doc to comment) Hi again Doc! Gotta tell you I'm totally on the other "side" here. And thanks for being a user who questions assumptions (we need more) but existing policy is that we should have redirects from misspellings and I agree with the policy wholeheartedly. I do see your take on it. That users who are taken to a nonexistent title that says "did you mean X" may be more likely to realize they were trying to navigate to a misspelling. But there are fundamental underlying concerns addressed by having the redirect and really we're talking about two different realms when considering the navigation purposes served by redirects verses avoiding users misspelling links in articles.

A redirect is a navigation aid. When a user types "Electra Records" into the search field (or searches any external search engine for that title) and a redirect exists, that person ends up at the correct place and is never fooled into thinking we don't have an article for the subject. While the search results page does have the suggested correct article, a person may think that's some other topic than what they were looking for, if they notice it at all. A more ambiguous example may highlight why this is: hesperia and hespera are two different things. We see similar names that are two different things all the time so even if a user sees the "did you mean" section of the page, that doesn't necessarily mean they will learn there is an article and that the misspelling they searched for is incorrect. On that note, the chief function of that page you get to when a title does not exist is to inform users that they may create the nonexistent title—and they do, all the time. I guarantee you if I were to delete the redirect at cemetary to cemetery (one of the 100 most misspelled words in the English Language), we would have a "new", redundant article at the redirect name in days that would need to be deleted (and/or redirected).

A second navigation reason militates toward having the redirect far more strongly. If and when a link is made in an article pointing at the misspelled Electra Records, and no redirect exists, it will be a red link and red links are our way of saying to people "there is no article on this topic, why not create it!" Unlike when you search for a nonexistent title, when you click on a red link, you do not get any suggestion of another article (no "did you mean Parlophone"; click Parlaphone to see). So every time a user makes a red link to Electra Records, they would be leaving behind an invitation to create a duplicative article at that title. Fixing the actual misspellings appearing in articles is a great and useful activity, but it is a separate activity from the navigation purposes addressed by redirects. Really if we follow your logic, it addresses all redirects from misspellings. There's nothing different about Electra Records or Persaphone from any other misspelling. If we deleted all these redirects we would see thousands of articles being created at the misspelled names, which is exactly what we want to avoid.

On a balancing test, the harm from users thinking no article topic exists and creating it, and all the users who are simply searching for a topic here or through an external search engine to read who won't reach their intended target if no redirect exists, far outweighs the perceived benefits of not having the redirect to better inform users it is a misspelling. So Electra Records should exist as a redirect (and so should Parlaphone). By the way, there are hundreds of thousands of redirects from misspellings. Very few of them actually are tagged with {{R from misspelling}}. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that every single day approximately 10 people attempt to reach Elektra Records by searching for Electra Records (over 3,000 people per year) and might not find the article if the redirect did not exist. See here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked the right one for sage advice again, it seems :> I truly appreciate the time and effort you out into your responses (for all that ask your advice); you brought up many excellent points that I hadn't even considered. I hope I didn't get too "snippy" with MrKIA11 - I'm still learning to tame my "gut reaction" to edit reverts. I realize my only course is to stick to dutifully "culling" misspellings on topics I choose to edit from articles, rather than attempt to delete the redirect page; it makes a lot more sense now. I really do appreciate the greater protection of the redirect policy, and now, I only better understand it (but I still truly hope no one creates a Parlaphone page... I really do...) Many thanks again, sir! :> Doc9871 (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I must say that was quite an explanation from Fuhghettaboutit; even I learned some things. But no problem, no offense taken. I've also had the opposite opinion of Misplaced Pages guidelines before, and sometimes it's not until someone is able to use the right words to convey the reasons behind the policy that you can understand and/or accept it. I'm glad that the issue has been resolved. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank both of you! I will always be a bold editor, and I assume consensus until I'm told otherwise. When I am told otherwise, I learn exponentially from that experience, and attempt to teach others the same down the line. Both of you politely and very patiently pointed out my mistake, and I am much appreciative of this. And Fuhghettaboutit? You are one of the best admins on WP, and I ask you for advice before any other. Gentlemen, thanks again, and Peace... Doc9871 (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ronstadt

Hello, Doc. Just to let you know, I have moved this here. Thanks for reverting the unsourced change. Rivertorch (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pamela Courson

I think the original book reference is the one to use. I tend to go with the first printing edition. I've watched this article for a long time and I jump in when I don't agree with what I see, such as the reference section being gone. It does need inline citations, if even to the book. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Cool! I don't have the book, but somebody who does will hopefully add some footnotes. Then the book can be moved into "References", the citations under "Notes" or "Footnotes", and "Further Reading" be reserved for books not cited in the article. I'll fix the book info on Pamela's page, and thanks for getting back to me :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Gacy trivia: I hate those sections too and have argued for their decrease and omission on several articles. WP:CRIME has taken exception to them, and especially when they list every episode of every mention on The Simpsons, Family Guy and South Park. It just doesn't compute! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehee... I wiped out the "Trivia" list on The Doors page in one fell swoop, expecting a ton of grief. Happily, not one peep. "Don't Fear the Reaper"? No, DO fear the reaper ;> Doc9871 (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Manson Picture

Good luck on arguing for the inclusion of that image, the most recent mug shot. Shortly after it was released to the public, I added it and it was very soon afterwords reverted for some dumb-assed reason which apparently survived "consensus" of the several people that "own" the article. I predict that only the holiday season has allowed it to continue to exist in the article, and it will be removed before the new year. Proxy User (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I will argue most fiercely if it is removed, as it's just as valid as any other mug shot on WP, and is historically irreplaceable. Hopefully if its removed and I begin a monstrous debate, you'll join in on the good side... :> Doc9871 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the reason it was deleted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I just heard the theme to Dragnet... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Stone Canyon Band.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Stone Canyon Band.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon

to you. How insane has that whole thing become?? Sheesh. Thanks for your observations. I would suggest you not post to that page in case someone would say you are me! Or to paraphrase The Wizard of Oz, "That's me all over the place!" Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) or as Rossrs would say MisterBeyondMyWildBettySoupLoganhartlivie (I'm feeling a little schizo today!)

"Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm schizophrenic, and so am I." I know how it is...

I'm about to put a waaayy better picture of Morrison on the Jim Morrison page - check it out; just getting it ready :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

re Fredy

The "no fly" list is an indef block. That usually requires pretty egregious activity with no valid edits; he seems to occasionally have valid edits. If he continues his behavior, though, indef is right around the corner. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I don't usually comment on Userpages I have on my watchlist, but Fredy.00's goal at the end seemed to be just the trashing of all Americans, really just devolving into a sad, spiteful mess. I saw too that he has valid edits - it's a shame when potentially good editors become "unhinged". Thanks again for the reply and clarification, and I assure you I'll be watching Fredy if not just for laughs :> Doc9871 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Le Doors

I'll be happy to give it an in-depth look in a few days. In the meantime, you shoud remove all the album covers from the article. They aren't justified under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response! The serious lack of inline citations is more troubling to me than the usage of the pre-existing (as far as WP is concerned) LP images in the article (a minor issue). Images are one thing, but this article has zero chance of getting better without excellent citation and prose work. We'll get to that in a few days, then! Doc9871 (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You still need to remove the album images, because images that don't adhere to fair use guidelines is a major issue. How many Doors books do you have access to? WesleyDodds (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)