Talk:Micky Dolenz

Untitled

I would just like to add that Micky Dolenz was re-married in September of 2002 to Donna Quinter. He is now performing as Zoser in the Broadway musical Aida, which will continue until the show is scheduled to end on September 5th, 2004. Micky also has several tour dates booked. His schedule can be found on his official site www.MickyDolenz.com or on fan sites such as www.MonkeeLand.com

Micky for Dudley in SHAZAM

I think Micky would be perfect to play Uncle Dudley in New Line Cinema's upcoming SHAZAM movie. I think he needs to get his agents & managers on it to get him the role.

I'm no expert, but it seems doubtful that posting about it on his WP Talk page could've had much effect on that. (Also, no IP, no date? How do people do that?) – AndyFielding (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

In olden times, by editing this page as if it were an article. —Tamfang (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget Oiler

I recall that Dolenz had an occasionally recurring bit role in Adam-12 as a local greasy-motorcycle thug called "Oiler." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.73.102 (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Metal Mickey

In 1980, Dolenz produced and directed the sitcom Metal Mickey.... Because the similarity of the character's name to his own caused confusion on set, it was at this time that Micky Dolenz officially changed his name to Michael Dolenz.

Eh? The name "George Michael Dolenz" is mentioned in Head. I'm guessing that this means he changed his stage name (which is registered with some union?), not his legal name. Can this be confirmed, and concisely clarified? —Tamfang (talk) 07:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

inspiration wanted, inquire within

Dolenz said in a 2009 interview that The Monkees was this show that wanted to be inspired by a famed rock group, The Beatles.

Wanted to be inspired? What does that mean? —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

From: The Monkees

"The antics escalated once, until Micky poured a Pepsi on Kirshner's head; at the time, Dolenz did not know Kirshner on sight." .... Who is Kirshner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.55.189 (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don Kirshner was a music publisher. He was hired by the producers of The Monkees to select songs for the group, because of his contacts. Eligius (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Clean up and References needed

The Following paragraph is in "The Monkees" section:

Dolenz said in a 2009 interview that The Monkees was this show that wanted to be inspired by a famed rock group, The Beatles. Like his co-star Davy Jones, Dolenz was a huge Beatle fan. When he was 22, he got to meet everybody in the band, and became good friends with George Harrison. Once when not touring, he smoked pot with Paul McCartney. In 1995 Dolenz did a Pizza Hut commercial with ex-Beatle Ringo Starr and Dolenz's own bandmates.

First sentence doesn't make sense and isn't referenced as to the interview. I'd edit it to read correctly, but am unsure of the overall point. Rest of the section needs references to the validity of the occurences - especially the "pot with Paul" part as this sounds like rumor or urban legend unless properly cited. Ckruschke (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Ckruschke

Missing Links band

Missing Link band member Dennis Raffelock stated that Dolenz was not a member of the Missing Links, despite three books saying that Dolenz was a member of the Missing Links.[1] The Monkees did produce the series Missing Links (album) and there is a Monkees tribute band called the Missing Links in which Dolenz has been present when they played. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

#8112 is the key clue

Abbythecat (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC) The TO BE OR NOT TO BE/BEVERLY HILLS 45 was recorded in 1981. Members of the British Monkees fan club got advanced copies in October 1981. Those copies are #8110 -- 81 for 1981, 10 for October. The single was officially released toward the end of December 1981. These store copies are #8112 -- 81 for 1981, 12 for December. The singles are indentical in every other way. Discogs verifies 1981. I have no idea why some sources list this single as 1982. It IS '81. BTW, DON'T DO IT and HUFF PUFF were both recorded in 1965 and not released until 1967 to cash-in on the Monkees. Abbythecat Abbythecat (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"God is a verb, not a noun."

How truly, truly profound. Could we have some clue as to its meaning? Or delete, maybe? Valetude (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

In context, I don't think that it needs an explanation, as it clearly illustrates that he does not have a traditional belief in God. That is not, however, an argument against its deletion. --Sm5574 (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I really can't see any case for it. Deleting now. Valetude (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems obvious that God's a subjunctive participle, anyway. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Dolenz isnt dead?

Someone has changed him as being dead. I believe he is alive, but Nesmith died. 2001:4BC9:A41:5A87:64D7:CD31:9F58:217C (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That is correct, as of this writing. – AndyFielding (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Malpractice

Credits show Micky Dolenz as the Director. Watching it now, cast includes Stephanie Zimbalist, looks promising. Not mentioned here. 2600:1700:81E0:BE60:64DD:E396:C374:AEC7 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Micky Dolenz Infobox photo

This was posted in @Wes Sideman's User Talk, and reposting here: Hello @Wes Sideman, I see you rejected the edit I made to uploading a photo of Micky Dolenz that is showing his eyes in his infobox, because you said it was "changed to much older photo ". With all due respect, the other three Monkees, Michael Nesmith, Peter Tork, and Davy Jones, all have photos in their infobox from the 1960's--black and white photos that are 6 decades old. So why would it be a problem if Micky Dolenz's infobox photo is from 2008? HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally, the more recent image is preferable to the older image, when it comes to living persons. This is not a hard-and-fast rule, however, and if a recent image is terrible, compared to the older image, the better picture should be used. However, I don't think the sunglasses are enough to disqualify this particular image from serving as the lead image. Others may disagree. Wes sideman (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think it's strange to have a profile picture of someone where you can't see their eyes, so I think almost any other relatively current photo of Micky would be better than the sunglasses one. The photo I uploaded of Micky is very flattering--although it doesn't have to be that exact photo, there are many other flattering photos of Micky out there. Currently one of Micky's peers, Peter Noone, who is yes very much alive still, has an image in his infobox that is from 2007, which is older than the one I uploaded. There are of course more recent photos of Peter Noone since 2007, but the photo of Peter in his infobox is very flattering, and still accurate in representing him. So isn't it best to have a photo that is flattering and representative? HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a judgement call. In my view, unless there's a huge difference, the more recent photo wins unless it's unflattering or deficient in some other major way. I don't think the sunglasses disqualify it. As I said, others may disagree. You can ask for community input over at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Images if you feel that strongly about it. Ask them to take part in this discussion. Wes sideman (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

If I'm going to weigh in, I think the 2008 image does a better enough job than the 2022 image does of showing his likeness. The OP is correct in my opinion that the sunglasses obscure his features enough to make it more difficult to visually identify him as Mickey Dolenz, whereas the older 2008 image is better in that regard. While it is true that all other things being equal we should use a more recent image, I think in this case that all other things are not equal, and that other confounding factors make an older image better than the more recent one. --Jayron32 15:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Jayron32! Yes, the sunglasses obscure Micky's features, and I think my photo really captures his likeness. Again, it does not have to be my photo, but I do not think the sunglasses photo is ideal. Would love to see others weigh in. Yes, @Wes sideman, I will absolutely take this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images if this is not resolved here. HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I would do that regardless; you'll just get more eyes on it that way. You're only going to have 3 people talking about it here. More input is better. Wes sideman (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

During this time, someone else changed the profile picture. I guess a lot of people really don't like the photo of Micky with the sunglasses. HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

What an amazing coincidence that an account that was dormant for over 14 years suddenly sprang to life solely to change a picture of Micky Dolenz, which is exactly what the HomecomingQueenEmily account did after making just 4 edits to Wikipedia in its existence. My advice to you at this point is to drop it. Feel free to ignore that advice or take it. Wes sideman (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not an amazing coincidence, that contributor has worked for the Monkees professionally, she worked for Davy Jones before his passing. Yes both she and I are very close to this subject material. Yes, I mentioned to her my photo was not accepted and she said she had some great photos herself that better represent Micky from this past year. So far you're the only person who feels the way you do. It's natural for people who know a lot about the subject material and have media to contribute, to use Wikipedia for that sole purpose. Yes, I only made a few edits--I am only contributing to Wikipedia media I own. HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you disclosed that you and RegionalGirl137 are connected. Of course, you could've done this 12 hours ago as well, but you chose not to, instead pretending that "a lot of people really don't like the photo of Micky with the sunglasses". You also could have taken my advice and gone to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, which is still an option.

Before you proceed, please read WP:MEATPUPPET. What you've just done is a huge violation of Wikipedia policy, although you have mitigated it somewhat by coming clean (sort of) in your last comment. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "I am only contributing to Wikipedia media I own" - you may want to clarify what you mean there, as no one owns any Wikipedia media. Wes sideman (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

When I wrote "a lot of people", perhaps that was dramatic and reactionary to what is going on here, but I meant, so far you're the only person who said you prefer this photo of Micky in sunglasses, and two other people on Wikipedia disagreed with you, and my friend who has worked with The Monkees professionally, and she also did not like this photo of Micky in the sunglasses... So I said "A lot". If you're spitting hairs over my wording, please accept my apology. She and I have been saying we have wanted this photos changed for months and were discussing which one of our photos might be ideal, or another photo from somewhere else, but I said it would probably be best to upload photos we own the rights to. We both are connected to this subject matter and this is why we have this opinion. I have nothing to hide, nor does she. She worked for Davy Jones, and I know/knew Micky Dolenz, Peter Tork, and Michael Nesmith personally, we just wanted good, representative photos of them out there. As I said, there are better photos out there, but I don't personally own the rights to them, so I didn't bother pursuing that. When I "media I own", I mean, I took this photo, and she took the photo she uploaded, and when you upload to Wikipedia it asks if you own the rights to the photos--so, yes, we both uploaded photos we took ourselves, it just seemed easier that way. HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous now. You included someone you knew personally and enlisted in your efforts to change the photo when you said "a lot of people" and didn't disclose right away that you knew them. Did you read WP:MEATPUPPET? Please read that, and add Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to your reading list before you reply again, I'm begging you. Wes sideman (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did read Meatpuppet, and I said I apologize for speaking dramatically. I did not personally enlist my friend Sarah to change this. I am being very transparent with you. As far as conflict of interest goes... Are Sarah and I are not allowed contribute photos, because we knew these people? HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for including me and asking for my input on this matter. After having mentioned it to several who are not involved and asking for an opinion, I do believe that there is a considerable amount of transparency here on our part to try and make positive updates to this page and update it as appropriate however, for some unknown reason, Wes doesn't want that to happen and that's unfortunate because it disenfranchises a lot of people who might view this page. Wikipedia is usually one of the top search results for any subject you might google therefore, current images should appear on these pages that do not have someone's face obscured by sunglasses etc. I am absolutely certain that if anyone other than those of us who are actively trying to bring this page up to date are viewing this discussion they too would feel the same and advocate for as recent a photo as possible. It's disappointing to see someone who is so intent on refusal to update something for the general public like this and honestly, behavior like that only serves to further discredit wikipedia and its ACTUAL contributors. RG137 16:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegionalGirl137 (talk • contribs)

I notice on your profile, Wes, that it says "This user believes that one's edit count does not necessarily reflect on the value of their contributions." and yet you state "What an amazing coincidence that an account that was dormant for over 14 years suddenly sprang to life solely to change a picture of Micky Dolenz," This seems to be contradictory first of all. Second of all, I did attend a recent Dolenz show, July 23 2023 in Charlotte NC where I took about 300 photos of Dolenz. In addition, I have in the past worked professionally for David Jones. I currently do not work for Dolenz, therefore I do not believe improving upon the "sunglasses photo" in question should be a problem, conflict or other issue that you've tried to make it out to be. You are grasping at straws here to keep the original photo and it shows!

Furthermore, it seems that the general consensus here is that the sunglasses photo may not be the best representation of Dolenz. It seems that for some unknown reason, you are abusing your power and privileges to keep that photo. That being said, it is my consensus and opinion that someone else entirely should review this matter and a final decision should be made that does not involve you. It does seem that you have some sort of bias in the matter that goes beyond citing policies, rules or otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegionalGirl137 (talk • contribs)

I agree with Jayron32 that an image without sunglasses, even if not as current, is best for the infobox. There are several good options to choose from on Commons. Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response @Schazjmd and @Jayron32, I also think the photo with the sunglasses obscure Micky's face. HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Update: sockpuppet investigation

The two accounts that initially advocated for the change in photo are, I believe, operated by the same person. See this report that I just filed for details. Wes sideman (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote in response to your report @Wes sideman "Excuse me. RegionalGirl137 are not the same person. I never pretended not to know RegionalGirl137. I made a generalization by referring to RegionalGirl137, a user/person I know in real life, with two other users on Wikipedia who I do not know, Jayron32 and a user with the IP 173.9.188.89 (I do not see a username), as one group of people, three users total, when I said "A lot" of people. I have since apologized for this faux pas. I realize "three people" does not constitute "a lot". I was feeling emotional, and I do not normally even react like that, but that was after much correspondence back and forth with @Wes sideman, and becoming exhausted by it. @Jayron32 had said "If I'm going to weigh in, I think the 2008 image does a better enough job than the 2022 image does of showing his likeness. The OP is correct in my opinion that the sunglasses obscure his features enough to make it more difficult to visually identify him as Mickey Dolenz, whereas the older 2008 image is better in that regard. While it is true that all other things being equal we should use a more recent image, I think in this case that all other things are not equal, and that other confounding factors make an older image better than the more recent one." The user IP 173.9.188.89 made a comment supporting my changing the photo, which has since been removed. And the user RegionalGirl137, who is a person I know in real life, had told me months ago she did not like the photo of Micky in the sunglasses and told me she also intended to try to change it. When corresponding with @Wes sideman, I *openly* said I knew user RegionalGirl137. I have never pretended not to know her. Nor did I ask her to change the photo for me. Wouldn't I ask her to change the photo to be *a photo I took myself*, if I was going to ask her to change the photo for me? No, she changed it to a photo she took *herself*. She simply also wanted to change the photo very much, and I had told her that the photo I submitted was rejected as a choice. I have been transparent with all of my actions every step of the way. I have simply said she is another person who had told me she also did not like this photo of Micky in the sunglasses, which she told me months ago. I openly explained I knew her in real life. I did not know I was not allowed to know or talk to another Wikipedia user in real life. First of all, I do not care about what photo is in Micky's infobox any longer, this is no longer important to me. Second of all, any look into RegionalGirl137 and myself you will see we are two different people. We are from different parts of America, which our IP addresses will show. Look at our IP addresses. We don't even write/talk the same way. Please, others, weigh in." HomecomingQueenEmily (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing the whole thing, I admit I was wrong about the two accounts being the same person, but they were definitely working in concert with each other. Close enough. Wes sideman (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth?

Why is Mickey's DOB missing from the infobox? 98.118.62.140 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)