User talk:Bill E Bailey

Soliciting comment...
Hi! Thanks for your recent addition to Agharta (album). Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Agharta (album) while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. If this edit was not done by you, forgive me. Dan56 (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dan56 - it's not me making the changes whilst logged out! I'm only making changes when logged in as Bill E Bailey. The other changes are being made by the author Paul Tingen himself who has asked me to forward on the following message to you:

I've just been scanning Szwed's book, and can't find any reference in it to Miles Beyond or to Ernico with regards to how he arrived at the titles for the different sections of Agharta (and all the other electric Miles live albums). Enrico's titling method is explained in my book on page 285 (note 14) and by Enrico himself on page 303. Many of these titles are not titles Miles or Columbia used. Until Miles Beyond no-one had a clue as to what was going on with the live albums (hence "Wednesday Miles" or "Interlude" or "Call it Anythin'"etc), and Ernico was the first one to identify and map the different segments and give them appropriate titles with a clear, verifiable logic. Bob Belden tried to do the same, but always made mistakes. He told me that he always feared the letter or e-mail from Enrico after the release of archived live Miles material, correcting him. Why he or Columbia didn't take the logical step of hiring Enrico as an consultant, I never understood. And relevant to this situation, the fact that Szwed's simply copies these titles and states them as fact, without acknowledging where they came from, is one of the things that really annoys.

Hope you can understand our reasoning behind the changes we are trying to make in respect of academic ownership? Bill E Bailey (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. In light of that, I've reverted myself and restored your citation. Dan56 (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)