User talk:Mudwater/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Orphaned non-free media (File:DisraeliGears.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Is it okay for an editor to add a link under "External links" section to their personal (non-commercial) website?

For example, say I put up a webpage with photos I took of the Grateful Dead and added that link to a GD-related article on Wikipedia, that would be allowed, yes? Marcia Wright (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe! (1) Generally the external links section of an article should include only one, or a few, entries, for example the official web site of a band or musician. But a notes or references section is a different matter. As it says at Wikipedia:External links#References and citation, "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not 'external links' for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions... include an official site of the article's subject..." (2) As for whether an editor's own non-commercial web site may be used as a footnote or reference, I guess it can go either way. Some editors might take a strict approach in judging whether the web site was a reliable source, while others might take a more lenient position. (In my opinion photos have a certain built in reliability, as far as that goes.) (3) "P.S." If an editor had any photos that could be released under an appropriate license, I would encourage her (or him) to think about uploading them to Wikimedia Commons. Just a thought. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, got it, thank you Mudwater. I think there is a Wikibreak with my name on it, sadly. Marcia Wright (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Beretta92FS.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beretta92FS.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Sandstein  20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Acoustic Disc/ Acoustic Oasis

On the Live at the Boarding House page, I saw that you changed the record label to Acoustic Oasis. I checked on the Rhapsody page, and that has the record label as Acoustic Disc. Do you know of any reason for the difference? Also on the Acoustic Disc website, it is listing a future project: AcousticOasis.com, however, this web page is not up and running. Moorematthews (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened is that I saw that the album cover says Acoustic Oasis. I found the album on Allmusic, here, and that says Acoustic Oasis too. Then I went to the Acoustic Disc web site and found the Old and in the Way albums under Bluegrass / Newgrass on this page, and saw that Live at the Boarding House wasn't listed. That's when I changed the article. But, as you've pointed out, the Acoustic Oasis label seems to be a subsidiary, or side project, of Acoustic Disc, since their web site talks about it, here. So, how do you think we should proceed? Should the "Acoustic Disc albums" category be restored to the article? And, what should the "label" field in the infobox say -- Acoustic Disc, or Acoustic Oasis? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The sensible thing to do would be to create a page for Acoustic Oasis, but, there is not a lot of information about it. From looking at the Acoustic Disc website I could only find two other albums with the Acoustic Oasis label. I doubt that there are any wiki articles about those two albums. If one goes to AcousticOasis.com, they will find a web page that is meaningless. I say leave the label as Acoustic Oasis and then either create an Acoustic Oasis page or change the Acoustic Disc page to include Acoustic Oasis as a subsidiary of Acoustic Disc. Moorematthews (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Source for birthdates of living musical artists

Where do you go to get this info? The reason I ask is a User talk:Drummercafe changed a certain date (which I reverted back) of a certain artist, and it might just be sneaky vandalism, but on the other hand, I would look real foolish if I e-mailed this certain person and asked to verify his birthdate directly and it was indeed April 7th and not May 7th.!!

Saving Face, :)

Marcia Wright (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Gee, good question. I guess you'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Here's one approach though.  :-) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me! I checked out Dead.net with no luck-I can't believe there no corner of that website that wouldn't have basic statistics on each bandmember. Just goes to show ya never can tell....

Thanks for the intext citation on the DOB

Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Beatle Ice Cream

Here's just one mention of Beatle ice cream - there were likely dozens if not hundreds more (though most of these were, of course, from small regional producers - and probably not exactly original flavors). I'd be interested if Cherry Garcia did in fact turn out to be B&J's most popular flavor of ice cream. It's surely one of their "mainstay" speciality flavors (up there with Phish Food), but typically vanilla and chocolate are the top two sellers by a landslide, regardless of company or region. Badger Drink (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Beatle ice cream had escaped my attention before, so thanks for mentioning it. Check this out, it was the first thing that came up in a Google search. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dead Picture

What's the problem with putting up a picture of the 2004 Dead for the Grateful Dead? Obviousely they are different but that's why the caption clearly stated "SURVIVING MEMBERS of the Grateful Dead performing in 2004. I just think the article looks incomplete without some kind of picture and since wikipedia makes it very difficult to use photos and the "The Dead" photo was released into the public domain why not use it to represent the band, it does have 4 former members performing and there used to be a picture up there with just Mickey and Jerry, which is only 2 members. Representing the Grateful Dead with a photo of The Dead is better than not having a photo at all, especially since the subtitle mentioned that it was not the full Grateful Dead. 68.191.41.119 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The main thing I was thinking is that the Dead are not the Grateful Dead, so putting a picture of the Dead in the Grateful Dead article infobox doesn't really meet the need. Yes, four of the members are the same, but what we need is a full-on picture of the Grateful Dead themselves, preferably a really nice picture of them performing. I agree that the article is incomplete without a good picture, and I'm thinking that one will be available sooner or later. There have to be quite a few people who have good pictures of the Grateful Dead and I'm thinking that some are going to turn up in the public domain. By the way, thanks for the message. I'd like to recommend that you create a Wikipedia account. It's really easy to create an account and your privacy is well protected. Check out Wikipedia:Why create an account?. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Casey Jones

Cocaine is a good hyperlink to keep in that many wikipedia users click from one subject to the next to educate themselves. Removing it is not needed and any attempt to help users navigate the site to learn more about various subjects is important.Donmike10 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that linking "cocaine" helps the reader "understand what the difference is with the Grateful Dead song, the ballad, and the original story upon which it was based." Per WP:OVERLINK, the terms that are linked should be those relevant to the context. For example, most editors would agree that the word "train" in the same sentence should not be linked. But I guess this is somewhat of a gray area. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 10:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Your $.02 worth

Thank you Mudwater! You are absolutely right. And so obvious- if it had been a snake, it would've bit me. Again rhanks! (And FYI-OCR stands for Optical Character Recognition, as in scanning the text of a document, see Graytouch) Marcia Wright (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Need more of your two cents worth

I hope to get your opinion on the idea of a "public" OTRS system...In a nutshell- being able to cite e-mails as a ref, say from an expert on the article's subject, which is not allowed, violates a few policies. Discussion has started here

Marcia Wright (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the Open-source Ticket Request System, and I don't have a strong opinion on this question, so I'll respond here rather than joining the discussion. I think implementing this idea would be an uphill battle. As you alluded to, the big issue is that it seems to be somewhat in conflict with Wikipedia:No original research as well as Wikipedia:Verifiability. With that having been said, it is a cool idea, and does seem like a logical extension of OTRS, from what I can tell. So, maybe it'll catch on. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I do have one other thought. I believe you'll get more discussion on this subject if you start a new section on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you do that, create a link from the current discussion to the new discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 08:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Myspace.com -"another offical site"? Says who? Got a footnote on that?( joking)

I almost took it out, but I'd rather defer to you the more experienced editor. regards Marcia Wright (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)  :) It'll come up on your watchlist so I don't need to specify the article. Thats now my almost every day comment " got a footnote for that?" Cheers

It's not an official site, but what is it, exactly? Do the band and Rhino Entertainment know about it? And would it be appropriate to link to it from the References section? I'm not sure. So, here's what I did, but if someone else took it out entirely I wouldn't put it back. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I was saying.... — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Disciple

Hi, Mudwater! I meant it, when I asked you to teach me to do things properly. I originally came to the Wikipedia to improve on my writing and referencing.. well, research skills. They were once impeccable.. (laughing)-- ..really! When I was, ah, 15-17, in college! (I don't do LOL well.. it has lost too much of it's meaning). But also, I have no computer smarts, & no truly personal help learning this stuff- just learned how to type within the last decade! Yeah. But most of the 1980s and 1990s even, are *fuzzy*. (the asterisk connotates alternative states of consciousness. ;) Lately, it appears that I'm using up a lot of time on other people's talk sheets which I admit is a bummer for us all, since people don't usually contact me on mine unless they want to complain. Working easily 7-12 hours most days on either the Wikipedia or other places- looking for photos- on all kinds of articles gets me under a lot of noses, usually those who don't want to "share" their article, and are totally new to the WP. Trying to talk professional photographers into giving up their copyrights in exchange for GFDL regulated photo status has left me building infoboxes and adding photos most of the time, and usually, once I find a photo I'm looking for there are often curious other ones, which I check in the WP here, and find we're missing too. That's how I come upon so many articles that are a mess, generally, unreferenced, no listas parameters, infoboxes, photos, lots of Peacock writing, etc. So before I can show these kind people that have given us their photos, I try to add at least add some sections, and a reference, and clean it up a bit. That's how I came upon the John Molo article which was lacking in references, I thought. That is how I came to bump into your article-and so I have some questions. OK? Most articles have an Intro, then the biography, equipment used by the artists and personal life, acheivements, discography, current work, or a section on how they died, and their legacy--not necessarily in that order. Then usually, there are references, and external links. What is the difference between those last two I mentioned and the Notes section you placed? Do Notes mean References? And, if editors on articles use different menthods of citing refs, (either putting the <ref> tags or using the cite button, does it mean that two reference sections would be required or how would that work? It's a little confusing for me, there, on the really long and glutted articles, like Peter Gabriel. Anyway, I've taken up enough space for now, but can I come and ask you lame little questions like this now and then, and maybe for some help sometimes? I could use some explanations, and guidance! Thanks again. --leahtwosaints (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I do have some experience as an editor, but, like a lot of other people, my knowledge of Wikipedia is actually very incomplete. Also, I've been spending less time here than I was before. I might even be taking a Wikibreak or two some time soon. With that being said, I'll be glad to try to help you with any questions if I can.

I think the typical organization of an article about a musician is pretty much as you described it, and is just a specialized case of the organization of any article. My reading of the guidelines is that the sources cited in an article should be in two sections, Notes and References. Notes are the citations that are in-line footnotes, and References are the citations that are not footnotes. These can be books, articles, or other printed publications, or they can be online. If they're online, they should have links to the cited pages. But, the External links section should be reserved for a very small number of websites, if any, that are exclusively or officially devoted to the subject of the article. Like I said on the John Molo talk page, for a musician this would generally include the official web site(s) for the musician or their band, and not much else. I think you'll find that web page links that should be in a References section are sometimes put, incorrectly, into an External links section, and sometimes I move them when I see that.

In general, in-line footnotes are considered better than references that are not footnotes, because they show exactly which parts of the article are based on which references. So, one can improve an existing article by changing part of all of a list of references into footnotes, by finding which parts of the article are substantiated by which references. References can also provide excellent source material for expanding an article. And in the case of some musicians they're necessary just to establish that the subject of the article meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability (see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music)).

As far as the organization of Notes, References, and External links, I'm getting a lot of this from Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and footers and from Wikipedia:External links#References and citation. For a general discussion about how to improve articles, see Wikipedia:Writing better articles.

Now here's a question for you. I've noticed that you've been attributing some of the images in articles to the photographers who took them. See for example this edit. The photo falls under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license, which says that the image must be attributed. But, isn't it sufficient to have the attribution on the image page itself? It is there in this example, at File:Bob Weir 123176.jpg. Isn't putting the attribution in the article as well a bit of overkill, so to speak? I'm half saying this, because that's how I think it works, and half asking it, because I'm really not sure, and because I know you're a student of image licensing on Wikipedia, and you probably know more about this than I.

Okay, this post is too long! Optionally, let me know what you think about all this. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Two parts, and I'll never make it this long again.

1. Re: giving attribution on photos, I've found that it inspires faith from the people I just talked out of their copyrights on the pics to see their name up there in LIGHTS! (giggle) You know what I mean? And certainly, unless it's with the caption in an infobox, someone eventually comes along and yanks that part out, but once they find I didn't bilk them, the pro-photographers are often willing to open up the Golden Gates to all their photos, got some beauties that way. In your case though, do you know about David Gans? His Grateful Dead (and offshoots) radio show after traveling with the band (like so many of my friends did when Jerry was still alive) makes him a good source for photos, and his article here does give him notability. So I left his name on John Molo, and Bob Weir. I have maybe 6-8 great other photographers who'll do anything for the Wikipedia, and them I treat special, too. But as I said, if it's removed, your point is valid- all you need do is click to find them.
2. References I get what you are saying about all of this. It was pretty much my take on the whole thing. Just worrisome to find some pages having a reference section for those who use the <ref></ref> tags, and then, yet another whole section for refs that come from using the CITE button, (which I find is greatly more desirable- in part, because it can quickly show you how lacking in notability some references are when there's nothing to put in those little boxes!! I just thought that Notes, with the stuff written there, should be looked up, either via someplace like Amazon.com or the public library, using the USBN numbers and so forth. And heck, I've been doing this stuff for 2 years, but you know, perhaps 5 people (including yourself) have ever taken the time to go over something as boring as this..(CAN you get Dementia from doing this shit?) --kind of leaves me speechless at times. Next time, I'll do something nice for you. Boring stuff. Think on it. I'll be ready and we can exchange time that way. You teach me something, and I'll work it off, (haaa-- I really mean it. I must be losing grip on reality.) But, yeah. I'll add to Oteil's page or something. :) OH, here's a hug (((((Mudwater)))))<-- those are arms, mine are wide!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The shooting articles

Hi Mudwater,

Just saying that I am fine with your peacemaking efforts. To that end, I made one constructive suggestion at Talk:Cowboy Mounted Shooting and made some minor edits to the article itself. Please note that I am acting completely in good faith. I am, however, deeply concerned about what will happen when Howes weighs in, and would appreciate it if you help to tone down anything that gets heated. Montanabw^(talk) 00:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Like I said, I think you and he can work together constructively on those articles, if you focus on the articles themselves and not on your previous disputes. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving on is always good advice, but it also is helpful to be aware of the previous situation. Montanabw is a long term highly respected editor who has made a lot of significant contributions and who tries hard to help new editors. HowesR1 appears to be a [[WP:SPA][ based on actions, and one that doesn't take counsel well, so while it's good to be even handed in general, sometimes punishing both people equally is the wrong approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still hoping that everyone involved can work together to improve the articles, and it seems to me that the ideal approach would be for everyone to make a fresh start, so to speak. With that having been said, thanks for the feedback. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my hope too. We shall see. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues

Hi! A couple of things. Because the Flickr to Commons upload is broken (prob. for good), it's hard & time consuming (not to mention really puzzling for me and the photographers at Flickr. I lost about 25 photos we need from 7 photographers who can't figure out the Flickr upload, esp. if they don't speak English or Portuguese (my languages).. and drives me to wanting to hack this computer to pieces, etc. Truly. You have no idea!!

1. Anyway, another editor manually uploaded 4 photos from Flickr. The ones of Barry Sless and Rob Barraco he took at a concert, and was too far from the stage, so he photographed them on the big screen above. Now BIG BROTHER at Commons is saying that they don't now qualify as Creative Commons photos! WTH? I mean, no copyright has been violated. What can I do?
2. Less stressful but I haven't the foggiest to do with this: Click CeeCee Lyles. Any idea why there's a redirect to United Airlines of all things?! Can you notify whomever oversees that stuff? Weird.

Thanks my brother! That's it! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Leahtwosaints. (1) It looks like Eusebius has explained his thinking in the Barry Sless image deletion discussion. He's saying that the images on concert projection screens are copyrighted. I don't have a strong opinion about that myself, but I guess it makes sense. By way of analogy, suppose I found a really nice copyrighted still photograph of Barry Sless, took a photo of the photo, and uploaded my photo to Flickr. The photograph I took is my own work, but it's a copy, however imperfect, of a copyrighted work. I know this is all quite irritating, but members like Eusebius are just trying to make sure that the Commons images have the appropriate licensing information. (2) "CeeCee Lyles" redirects to "United Airlines Flight 93" because she doesn't have her own article but is discussed in the Flight 93 article. That type of redirect is pretty common on Wikipedia. It's easy to change the redirect into an article -- I can tell you how if you don't know -- but of course you would need to establish that the subject of the article is notable -- see Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I put in my 2 cents about the screen in the concert. It's only for the convenience of concert attendees in the cheap seats who can't get a good enough look at the people on stage! Unless the concert is being taped for an upcoming album, for example, I believe photographing the screen above does not violate copyright. I just can't see how. In particular, most affiliates or members of the Grateful Dead, allow taping the music and photographing the artists unless it's against the policy of the establishment where they are playing. See Tim Reynolds, or Dave Matthews Band where it's explicit on their website. Sad that these two don't have a website with such a comment. What a let down, especially considering the photographer didn't lie, it did come from Flickr, was his own work. But, maybe it would work uploaded to Wikipedia, what do you think?

1. Re: CeeCee Lyles I couldn't care less; I just thought it seemed strange. I'll let the Admins. hash it out if it's not correct. Thanks again!
2. And, thanks for your offer to help manually upload the free licensed photos. I'll have a few more soon. It will be a relief. As I might have told you, computers were new to me just a couple years ago; and this was really the first thing after email I tried to do, to edit, initially, till I got sick of seeing all these biographies without any image to compare to. In an encyclopedia you would assume there would be a visual example to understand what's being discussed!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

For manually uploading pictures from Flickr to Commons, I think SpinningSpark's instructions are really good. Try to follow those carefully, step by step, and you should have good results. But, I can probably try to help if you have any specific questions. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you see my talk page? After you too, said to "try, try again", I did, and it worked! I never believe I'm capable of doing things in "unfamiliar territory" like Commons, esp. once I try and fail more than once. But it's the 2nd time Spinningspark has gone beyond the call of helping newcomers (and dummys) listing each step to do something for me. I was so happy for him when he made Admin! Thank YOU for affirming the directions, because I've uploaded 5-10 photos already and placed them, and there are more waiting. Can you think of some nice thing I can do for him to show my appreciation??--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's excellent. Based on what you'd done before on Wikipedia, I was sure you could do it, once you worked though the steps on your own for a bit. Now you're "empowered". As for SpinningSpark, how about a nice thank you note on his talk page? Anyway, keep up the good work. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

Should I nom ole Mr. Lukens Mudwater? What are your thoughts, oh and thank you for the Jambase interview link! I enjoyed that very much. I was glad to see he mentioned about the dolphin slaughter/Cove information and hope that gets stopped soon, the next scheduled kill is in September I think. Again Thanks!! Marcia Wright (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm voting "yes" on the Theodore Lukens situation. If you get a GA rating, great. If not, you should at least get some helpful specific suggestions on how to improve the article further. So, go for it. The only thing I'm not sure of is which category and subcategory to use for the nomination on WP:GAN. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which subcategory should be used at WP:GAN#Nominations? That's the question all right. Should it be "Farming and cultivation"? "Politics and government"? "Biology and medicine"? Or perhaps the dreaded "Miscellaneous"? Let me know what you think.  :-) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, even though he was active in local politics and served one full term and one partial term as mayor, his main drive was always the environment. He would take his wife with him (until she became too ill) and just roam and wander the San Gabriel mountains. He specifically went searching for Muir in hopes of bumping into him, which happened. He was supervisor of the first federal timber reserve in the state. He established Henninger Flats for experimemtal tree research. He was in a circle of environmentalists, including Abbot Kinney, the first state forester and Ezra and Jean Carr. And finally he was dubbed the "Father of Forestry" also " Father of California Forestry". Did I make my case for farming and cultivation ?:) Marcia Wright (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New Riders (album)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of New Riders (album), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://thenewriders.com/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interested humans can view my response at Talk:New Riders (album)#CorenSearchBot. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm thanking all the good folks who are tending to the Derek Trucks and The Derek Trucks Band articles. It might seem there's not enough information on the members of Derek's band, but if anyone can help, there's a whole lot on NPR and other places. I really appreciate it; my computer won't connect to the internet, and this is a quick on the sly use of my old man's computer, and I can't spend the time I'd like on it. Perhaps next week it'll be fixed. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:NRPSMarinCountyLine.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shubinator (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What to do...?

Hi M- In my acquaintance with a photographer who is also the head of the Brazilan fan club for the Dave Matthews Band, (half of my family is Brazilian.. so..) anyway, we've emailed each other a handful of times. He came back from vacation and said that their drummer, Carter Beauford has commented that 90% of what has been written about the band is dubious at best, (probably true), and that he wants the "Personal Section" about his marriages and children removed. I told my contact in Brazil, that if he himself was to contact Wikipedia it would most likely be removed, but I left a message on his article's talk page anyway. What can be done in instances like this? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Leahtwosaints. I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure of the best approach. Take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself, and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help#Managing your biography. If you actually end up exchanging emails with Mr. Beauford, so that you know firsthand what his concerns are, you might consider dealing with some of that stuff on his behalf. On the other hand, you could try just deleting the "Personal life" section from his article, and see if other editors accept that. If you do that though you should probably explain first on the article's talk page. In general I'm not too clear on what types of information are normally removed from BLPs at the request of the article's subject. As far as Mr. Beauford thinking that a lot of the information in the Dave Matthews Band article is "off", he should know, but of course Wikipedia articles should genereally not be based on someone's personal knowledge. The right approach would be to try to improve the article based on more and better reliable references. Hope this helps. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Image

Thanks for the help on the image. I figure you saved me about five hours! So many people so far seem focused on saying no, instead of "this is how..." Thanks for being different. Any suggestions on my wikistalker now deleting any reference to the band in other articles?--VMAsNYC (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So, someone's deleting material about the band from other articles? I'm not sure what to think. Can you provide an example, or a few examples? As a general statement I'd say that if you add material to an article, it's always a plus if you can also add a reliable reference or two. If you did that, it would be much harder for anyone to justify removing what you've added. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for a lot more information about this. (I'm often away from Wikipedia but if you post here on my user talk page I'll generally reply within a few days or less.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. This started with my suggesting to another editor that I did not think he should remove square brackets from citations (though I did not revert him; see [1]). His reaction was to spend most of his edits (many) since that moment reverting, revising, or deleting my edits, starting first with articles I had created (including one on this band) and now today culling through my edits where I had mentioned the band the Shells and deleting those edits (see [2] and [3]).--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate question -- should one of us delete the larger of the two pix that I originally uploaded?--VMAsNYC (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you or I can't delete the earlier, larger version of the image, because we're not administrators. But, that will be done for us. I forget if an admin or a bot is going to do it, and how long until that happens, but I've seen that information around here somewhere. I'm planning on replying to your other post when I have more time. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tx! I just didn't want to unintentionally let something stay up that shouldn't.--VMAsNYC (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at some of your edits and also some of the discussions you've been involved in. I haven't studied either of those things very thoroughly, but I think I get the general drift of what's going on. Here are a few thoughts. (1) I haven't formed a strong opinion about the removal of your edits, mentioning the Shells, from other articles, but I think I understand where that's coming from. Many editors feel quite strongly that Wikipedia should not be used for promotion, whether it's promotion of a commercial interest, an artistic interest, a political view, or whatever. So, a lot of editors will remove what they view, correctly or not, as being that type of thing. (2) There have been many discussions and disputes, both general and particular, about the use of images on Wikipedia. I agree that it should be easier to figure out what the rules and guidelines are, and that there are some grey areas. In my humble opinion, the currently accepted practices in the area of image use are too strict. But, again, I think I see where that's coming from. Part of it is wanting to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't violate copyright laws, and part of it is trying to make sure that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia -- not just in the sense of not costing money, but also in the sense that anyone is free to copy anything they want from Wikipedia. Because of that last part, editors sometimes "err on the side of caution" in making sure that any images can be legally copied, not just into Wikipedia, but also from Wikipedia to anywhere else. (3) In general, Wikipedia is a really collaborative effort. You may spend a lot of time and effort writing something, only to have one or more editors come along and change it all around, or even delete it. I know you understand that and I appreciate the fact that you've engaged your fellow editors in discussions about your disagreements. In my opinion, the spirit of Wikipedia, if I can talk about such a thing, is to discuss these disagreements in a positive, polite, and even friendly way. I think you'll find that some of the editors you talk to here don't always completely succeed in doing that. But I've found that if I do it, they're more likely to do it too, and if they don't, at least I can say that I kept it positive myself. (4) Lastly, looking at the big picture here, I think things are working out pretty well. In particular, I think that The Shells is a really nice article. Of course there's always room for improvement, but right now I'd say it's well written, with a lot of good information, and, very importantly, good references. So, thanks for your contributions to that article, and to other articles as well. "P.S." Ironically, perhaps, it seems that an image that I uploaded -- it was actually one that I had resized to be smaller -- is likely to be deleted soon. Check out the next section here on my talk page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:ABB2004.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:ABB2004.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia 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. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

David Grisman

Hi, a note about the David Grisman article. I saw it had a photo but no infobox, so I built one, but didn't populate the box with as much information as was available in the article b/c I was unsure as to what really applied. I know you don't like people messing with the Grateful Dead-associated articles, so I wanted you to know, and maybe you can do the touch ups. Also, the article hasn't got any references, the discography is sloppy, and a section named "Notable" is mostly trivia, or belongs other places. That's about it. Sorry it's not as happy news as could be. :] --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the infobox. It looks good to me. Also, while there's plenty of room for improvement in this article, I think it's in half decent shape. I agree that it needs more references though. I actually don't have a major beef with the discography, and I'm really into discographies. Anyway, while it's true that I'm pretty active on a lot of the Grateful Dead related articles, I wouldn't say that I don't like people messing with them. On the contrary, I would encourage other editors to contribute to them. Some of them can use a lot of help. So, feel free to dig in! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's my turn to jump in...I have no idea where you got the idea that Mudwater "don't like people messing with the Grateful Dead-associated articles"! With his constant and persistent encouragement, I added details on the New Orleans drug bust to the article, which, as shy as I was then as a new editor, would not have even thought to attempt.

I really take umbrage to that statement, for the record. Marcia Wright (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I do try to encourage others to participate, so I appreciate this feedback. Leahtwosaints, if you read this, the point is that you should feel free to improve any articles you feel like working on. :-) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion efforts

Following up on you comment on the talkpage of The Shells, I'm a bit at a loss, and would be interested in your input.

As you may have seen, there are now ongoing discussions as whether to delete that talkpage -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Shells.

And even whether to delete the MTV VMA that the band was nominated for -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Best_Breakout_New_York_City_Artist_Award.

If it would as some have suggested help settle down the fuss, perhaps it is best to put the album page info into the band page, and redirect album inquiries to the band page?

That might satisfy deletionist by reducing the number of pages, while at the same time keeping the information available.

Otherwise, I have no idea what the result will be of the above 2 deletion discussions.--VMAsNYC (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If the band is notable and the album is not notable, then the album article should be merged into the band article, otherwise it shouldn't. If I form a firm opinion on any of these proposed merges or deletions I'll post on those discussions. Thanks for the heads up. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback on my talkpage

Hi, I'm wondering why you rolled-back Shoemaker's Holiday on my talkpage? It's generally considered rude to use that on established editors, and it isn't helpful to revert without leaving a message saying why you did so. ThemFromSpace 01:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I meant to revert a change to an article and I just plain missed, then didn't realize I'd made a mistake. I have your user page on my watch list is how that happened. I've put things back the way they were. My apologies for the mistake. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Here's why you're on my watch list. Normally when I start a thread on someone's talk page, I encourage them to reply there, to keep the discussion in one place, and then I put their talk page on my watch list, to see when they reply. I'm not too diligent about taking people off my watch list after the discussion is over. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, I watchlist most every article I edit (my watchlist is at 9400 pages and growing!). ThemFromSpace 02:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Useful?

Hi, I'm looking for vintage photos of The Who and the Rolling Stones, amongst some others.. (for some reason I can't find a single photo of Gram Parsons which is driving me insane). Anyway, I came across the following photo, which the photographer mentioned to me, and I believe she'd make it a free image for us to use. Do you think it would help any page you are aware of? :[4] Jerry Garcia and the Allman Brothers Band. Let me know OK? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I really like that picture. It would probably be good for the Jerry Garcia article, in my opinion. By the way, how exactly do you get photographers to release their photos? I presume that you find them and contact them by email. Then what? Do you have them upload a photo to Flickr with a license appropriate for Wikipedia? Or do they submit permissions using WP:OTRS? Or what? Just curious. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming

Thanks for your help on the disambig of The Shells. Quick question. The name that has just a couple of days ago been given to it is wrong (The Shells (folk band)). That is because its music genre is not folk -- rather, it is broader than that (it describes itself as "an American all-female pop/folk rock harmony trio". I've no great feeling as to whether it should be "pop/folk rock trio", or something else that incorporates other aspects of its background (e.g., editor Rja I believe mentioned the possiblity of call it a "New York City" ... (forget -- band or trio)) ... but to call it a folk band is a mischaracterization, as it too narrowly describes its type of music as reflected in the sources. Many thanks in advance for your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that in a case like this, where the name of the article distinguishes between two different bands, the goal should be a short and general article name. So, an article name of, for example, "The Shells (pop/folk rock trio)", while more precise or descriptive, would be not as good as a shorter, more general name like "The Shells (folk band)". The goal is to help readers find the right article. Once they do that, we have the entire article to explain what their music is really like. So, I think the current article name may be the best choice. With that being said, something like "The Shells (folk rock band)" would still be reasonable, in my view. What I would suggest is that you decide what the one best article name would be, and, if it's not "The Shells (folk band)", create a new talk page section proposing the rename, and see if you can create a consensus among the editors. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tx. I recognize the goal of having it be short. The problem here is that if we go with genre, they self-identify as a three-word genre. (Perhaps the answer is to not go with genre, then, if it is so important to not have three words). To identify with only 1/3 or 2/3 would be to misidentify --- sort of like calling the Spanish-American War the Spanish war, or calling South-East Asian food "South Asian food", or Tex-Mex food "Tex food". So if three words are too long, perhaps "New York City" is better? Or temporal (a 2000s band?)? Or is three words ok? And should "trio" replace "band?"--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view, how they describe themselves is not critical to this question. Also, I do think that "band" is better than "trio" in this case. But, if you decide on a name that you think would be better than the current one, feel free to propose it on the article's talk page. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tx. I think they're described that way by others as well; none of the sources I've seen call them a folk band. Will do.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo

I have started the GA review, and my initial comments are here. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 20:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, and also for your edits. The review is going well, I think, with a good, constructive dialog going on. I haven't edited that article at all myself. I do work on album articles a fair amount, and that's how I ran across it. I really think it has a lot of excellent material, with excellent references. So, I'll be watching to see what happens. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mudwater, I accidentally typed in Sweethearts of the Rodeo and got the article on that band (both ladies look exactly like me by the way ;). Do you think a disambig page is useful here? Just a thought.Marcia Wright (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, good question. Offhand I think a disambiguation page is not really necessary. I'd put a hatnote on Sweethearts of the Rodeo, but it already has a link to Sweetheart of the Rodeo in the first paragraph. So my initial thought is to leave things the way they are. "P.S." If you haven't done so already, check out the extended discussion and the many recent edits for the Sweetheart of the Rodeo Good Article nomination. I think you'll find the whole thing quite interesting. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the review discussion yesterday and it is very educational, especially about what a lead contains and whether or not cites should be repeated in the body text. Also the definition of a blog was interesting. I even checked out Silk Tork's user page, which is also a good read. The review also scared the daylights out of me-better described as "stage fright"(re: Lukens). I do think a hatnote on one or the other article is a good idea, why force a person to search for the link, even though it is in the first graph? Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A hatnote on Sweethearts of the Rodeo sounds reasonable. I'd say add one if you want to. Or maybe I will. But do you think there should also be a hatnote on Sweetheart of the Rodeo? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Since, as you pointed out, there is a blue link in the first graph of Sweethearts, a hatnote on the Byrds album article only I think would be helpful. Should I talk to the article's authors about this suggestion first though?Marcia Wright (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you can either just add it and see what happens, or ask them first on the article talk page. I'd add it myself but I'm trying to "lie low" on that article since I nominated it for GA and it's still under review. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we're all set now. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Mission accomplished. Marcia Wright (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

hi

i am a new user and i thought i'd say hi --Hollstein (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Have fun editing articles. If you have a question, you can post it here on my talk page, I might be able to help. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy 3rd Anniversary!

I know I'm early, but time gets away from me more and more these days.

For your anniversary, I have brought two items.

First is this oil painting image that is up for deletion.

File:Image 33256.jpg

And second is this essay from the Wikipedia library about Wikipedia.

Happy editing! Marcia Wright (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

PS A Quote for the Day-"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is

research." -attributed to Steven Wright (no relation). :-) Marcia Wright (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks. You too. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Hello Mudwater, hope you are fine and enjoying the Christmas time ! I wanted to say, that I appreciate all your comments you sent me for editing/creating of Wikipedia articles I made. Happy New Year 2010 ! Tomiwoj

You too. Thanks for the note. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10