User talk:HJensen/Archives/2009/January

Zappacheers!
Congratulations on getting Frank Zappa up to FA status! The article looks nice, though I note with dismay that the Lather section has been re-written to the old, misleading version (alluding to the Lather material being originally conceived as a single release - a highly ridiculous notion). Stripping away all anecdotal evidence, which (especially with Zappa) has a tendacy to be mis-leading and overly given to political whims, points to the Lather material being conceived of as four separate albums (ZINY / Sleep Dirt / Studio Tan / Orchestral Favorites), delivered to Warner Brothers all at once to escape an undesirable contract, rejected by Warner Brothers (most likely for being too many albums at once), and then reformatted by Zappa into a "single" four-disc album a) to present WB with a "single" album and b) to supercede as much of those four albums as possible with a single competing release. Anyway, starting to feel like a single-issue loony - once again, great job. Badger Drink (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! As for the Läther "controversy", I think that the concluding Footnote 121 clearly emphasises that it is indeed debated in which sequence things were actually concieved.--HJensen, talk 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Happy New Year, HJensen, and please don't eat the yellow snow. Mick gold (talk) 10:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! A happy one for you too!--HJensen, talk 22:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy new one and Tx
Hi Hj, a happy and productive 2009 to you and your dears! And thanks for [this]. I should have had a closer look at what was ref and what was quote. Thanks for scrrrOOtinizing. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A quote from Zappa is not a proper reference?
Aw, spare me, please. Hey, Joe, what is the deal? Sorry to overbear you with zeal. But using words from Zap, to reference that crap, is propriate with ap - there seems a logic gap. Edit wars are kinda scary and of them I am quite wary... wonder what else could might carry... Using Zappa's words to source his subjective views on a song's protagonist is, in fact, the only correct way to cite a statement which is about Zappa's views on a song's protagonist. To deny - or overlook - that an element of satire is present in his "straight" lyrics is to do the reader a complete disservice. Badger Drink (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You inserted a POV statement. And in a footnote you then put in a quote by Zappa which supposedly supports it. You may be onto something, but for a non-Zappa fan, the two things did not make any sense at all: It is not possible for the non-initiated to see how things fit together. If you want to make edits where you use a Zappa quote as a source, it would be better to write something like "Zappa stated that the songs were blablablabla" - and then in the footnote you can either just provide the relevant reference to the TRFZB. Pícking up some quote that should support something in the text could be seen as original research which is not allowed.--HJensen, talk 02:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RfAR
Thanks for your support. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to add my great appreciation. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here; although you haven't helped me directly, your dedication is telling. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)