User talk:Kohoutek1138/Archive 3

Flying Burrito Bros
Hi Kohoutek. I've just been reading The Flying Burrito Brothers while listening to The Gilded Palace of Sin. Both articles are very poor, and should be much better. I've popped in a few crude unformated cites to The Flying Burrito Brothers, just to quickly record some sources. As I was looking at the article I remembered the excellent work you and Cbben did on Sweetheart of the Rodeo, and wondered if you'd be interested in working up either or both articles? There is a cheap book on The Gilded Palace of Sin that would be a helpful source. Regards -  SilkTork  *YES! 16:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Source
Hi Paul, I wanted to ask you if any chance you have a book telling about the song Diddy Wah Diddy. I wanted to create an article for it but got stuck already at the very beginning. Allmusic says for the composers both Dixon and Diddley. Discogs says Dixon wrote it for Diddley. Were they both the writers or Dixon wrote it and Diddley recorded? The song is also in the List of songs written by Willie Dixon and only says it was first recorded by Diddley. I have none of the sources that are used as reference in that article. And, Bo Diddley article wouldn't mention about the song. If you can figure it out, I'd be glad. Have a nice evening. ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul, I replied back in my talk page, now. ~ Elitropia (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! Now I'm not so sure what's going on, why this bot added such a template.. you mind checking Diddy Wah Diddy page out? ~ Elitropia (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's just some awesome work there, thanks! After the page was created, several editors did some edits, I didn't get why the bot added that template at all. Speaking of which, by this edit here, the H was replaced by h in the title of the band. Well, grammatically okay but these shots clearly show that the records were released under the name Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band, with capital letter. What's up with that? Since I wasn't sure, I didn't revert the edit but I think it should be reverted (?). ~ Elitropia (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning, Paul. I see what happened with the bot there then, the article was created around Christmas time, so makes sense it wasn't checked. About the band title, I just looked it up in Captain Beefheart's page and yes, it would write "his" but also in the Template:Captain Beefheart, it would write Captain Beefheart and "The" Magic Band.. "The" is not "the". If I get to figure this out sometime later, would let you know.


 * By the way, do you write articles by request? It would be cool to read an article about "I See You", the Byrds song. I don't know if the song is notable enough to have its own page tho, but I bet you'd have an idea. ~ Elitropia (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand. Then, the "The" issue would give no hint about the "His" issue. And, "I See You", I love it. I know you wrote "Why", another fav. track, and it's a cool article. I think that it would be you who can write a cool article about "I See You", too. Have a great day, Paul! ~ Elitropia (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy happy
Happy new year, Paul! Thank you for all the help from the very beginning, from the day I started editing here. ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Thumb
I saw you addressed the GA comments before I had a chance to. Thanks and happy new year! Rlendog (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your deletion
Perhaps you missed the discussion at Talk:Wild Mountain Thyme. The Braes of Balquither is very much relevant to WMT, given that the latter is widely acknowledged to be an unattributed copy (a.k.a. ripoff) of the former.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Byrds photos
I remember you! To upload a free use photo, the photographer must remove any copyright they have for it. The only positive thing you can offer them remains in them switching from a copyright to a Creative Commons license. We can't upload any photo to Commons otherwise, which is where ALL photos and sound bites should be uploaded. There are two routes to obtaining photos- either what I do, using Flickr and trolling for photographers who are willing to have great photos on the Wikipedia, or obtaining a GDFL license:. See right below this typing box- we release what we are doing here to CC-BY-SA AND GDFL!

What I do, is find a photo via the search engine at Flickr, and email the owner of a photo I want, and ask them to consider giving up their copyright and instead use one of the two Creative Commons licenses that we use. I've had to do it every damned time for over 800 photos! Not so easy being a Wiki Faerie! You can read it in more detail halfway down my Userpage. We can't upload any photo to Commons unless the photographer is willing to remove their copyright, and switch to a Creative Commons. There's a chart in Commons I show them:.
 * Re: your questions, the photos from The Byrds websites you pointed out don't fall in the Flickr category, and require permission just like the ones above, but the likelhood of getting anyone to reliquish them is really low. Once in a long while, you may convince others to let you use the photos, and I'll do my best on the Flickr end to help... There is another possibility, too, a good one. We couldn't find one with all the Rolling Stones, and then I realized I'd uploaded the individual photos for all of them (almost all their photos that are used.. I asked User:Moxy to put together a collage of them, and he did a beautiful job. IF you can find a decent photo that is free to use of each member (I know I uploaded a David Crosby photo, for example) he is friendly and would probably help, and then you'd have the whole band there. The only stickler is the Gram Parsons picture, I think. Anyway, ask any questions you wish, and I'll help. You can email me too- I know I'm long-winded! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Backlog of questions
I noticed the numbers of GA-ranked photos, your DYK stuff and all those barnstars! Nice! I keep wondering if I can show you anything you don't know already. I was raised in poverty and squalor and we never had computers- I learned just to type a decade ago.. (when I was young a long time ago I got scholarships to attend college). I'm hoping you can help me with some computer things. It's my ADD that makes it difficult to handle reading long, boring instructions. Can you figure out the bot that automatically archives our personal talk pages? I am hoping maybe you can set my talk page to the automated one: since I'm clueless! Also, I have a couple ideas for DYK articles, but am unsure how to go about submitting them. Finally, sometimes a photographer I have dealt with is interested in working on the Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, and right now, there's an outstanding guy User:KirkStauffer. Can you perhaps either answer some of his questions, "adopt" him, or find an excellent editor or Admin. to help him? His name IS Kirk Stauffer, and.. just look at the photos for Emily Robison, or Katie Melua in their infoboxes! I can teach him the basics but being a bit out of the limelight makes me wonder if most ediors won't notice him either. What do you say? It would be nice to leave a note on his talk page here! If you can help with any of these things, I'd be obliged! Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! God, if I can only see my talk page automatically done, it would be a relief. Plus, preferably since I finally ran into a newbie editor, as you may have noticed, whose mental state can go from half-together narcissism to really scary in a hot minute! I just don't have it in me to deal with controversy and a new editor. SIGH. I guess I have to, eventually, but not now!


 * Re: DYK, it's a shame there isn't more time given. There's only so long one can stick an article into their sandbox before revealing the article.. since I do a lot of cleanup of neglected articles, that's where I see potential DYK pieces, but having to add such a large percentage after another person takes more than passing interest, snd more dedication towards the long haul. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo answers
Sure, I'm willing to do the emailing and explaining for your article. I'll look into all the photos in Flickr that you mentioned-- sure! I should have mentioned that even photos on websites-- like the ones that you first showed me. I didn't mean to discourage you. Write them, give it a try! They would have to do the same as both the amateur and pro-photographers do, dropping the copyright and using Creative Commons. Meanwhile, I've marked the ones on Flickr that interest you, and then there are a couple more. One, by a really nice guy, David Gans who has a Grateful Dead regular radio program, and I've worked with him on photos for Wikipedia. He has a great one of David Crosby up close- a "faceshot":, and, of course, I'll "lobby" for the photos on Flickr. It is used so often that we have a couple of bots that upload from there. since photos from other places are usually emailed to the editor ssk an Admin how to get yourself a GFDL license, just because if you do get permission to use former publicity photos (and some of those photos are now so old, they can't be used for anything else by now, eh?) Either way you know all you must do is ask the photographer to change the copyetjat Commons for the license. It just shows that you are trustworthy in matters like checking with the person who posted a photo, that they ARE in fact the photographer. I didn't bother getting the GFDL license but I should have; I had to ask an Admin. to do it.
 * Last but not least. I noticed you contribute to albums and songs as well. There are actually photostreams of album and song covers, as well as the vinyl records [ showing the names of all. You wamt me to check them? Anyway, I'll keep looking for them and email all the ones that you and I mentioned, if that is all right. --[[User:Leahtwosaints|Leahtwosaints]] (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I sent out feelers for the photos on Flickr. As I thought, David Gans is already changing his photo of David Crosby from 1974, and one of the band photos that you chose also has a positive response, but I still have to write him about exchanging the copyright-- usually I get the pic about 80% of the time for the articles here. I'll let you know. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This may help..
Hi- the apparent owner of this photo: responded to me, so we'll see. You asked about cropping it. After I upload a photo, if it merits cropping, I contact the photographer to be courteous. If the license is just BY, then you can do it; I'm not sure about the BY-SA ones. I hope he comes through-- but I noticed a possible problem. Some people claim photos to be their work, when it is not, and the upload bot can!t tell in Commons. It's called "Flickr Washing". If you look all about the man's photo sets, nearly everything there us a collection of things (album covers, magazines) etc. It's always good to save all email and ask directly, "IS this YOUR work?". Extremely important no matter how tempting the situation, stuff like that, as you know, could pull the Wikipedia down. Anyway, here's a handy chart for your future photo safaris! I keep a copy in one of my sandboxes! And, the original chart is in Wikimedia Commons, in multiple languages, which can help to communicate what is involved to upload a photo. Which reminds me, if you ever add or edit in Sister-language Wikipedias, remember their ways of doing things are different, including the photo size and placing of it into the article. I sent you an email. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: Jan Tonneson -That's excellent news, regarding current ownership of the photo. Of course, sometimes photographers are unaware of others using their pics in sheer copyright violation. Usually, if a photo is used in a book though, it means that the author paid for the rights to post that photo and publish their book. IOW, that can mean a double-edged sword for us:( It does look like he's your guy. I found some of the responses to my requests for my most recent attempts at gaining photos were in my Spam section of my email address by accident, and I sent him another message, concerned that I might have missed a response from him. His answer was sort of like, "don't push me" and he said he's viewing all the implications of what the use of it would mean for him. Still, keep looking via Flickr for other possible photos- often you might find a photo not listed as The Byrds, but there might be a "fan club" kind of group on Flickr with a name like "Sixties rock" or pics of people that at some time played with The Byrds' band members, like members of Buffalo Springfield, or something. Later! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pics I uploaded thus far:
And

Both photos are from the photographer, David Gans, who was kind enough to allow use of his photos. I hope these can be used in the article- I know they are beyond the time of The Byrds, but, in case.. they sure wouldn't go to waste! I also got a positive response from a photographer with a photo of Roger McGuinn from about 15 years ago or less.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad! As I said, the photos are from David Gans, a notable Wikipedian. He provided the B&W pics of David Crosby, (and Graham Nash, and the B&W pics of The Last Waltz); all pics he could easily have sold elsewhere. B/c he is notable, you can place his wikified name in the caption of the photos. Please use both in Crosby related articles. Once you do, let me know so i can email him with the URLs. About the photo with all The Byrds, I doubt it will come through, since the pictures in Tonneson's photostream in Flickr are all in books, which means he likely sold them and no longer owns the copyrights. The guitar, I will write and request, but have you checked in Commons yet? We might already have a copy of one there. Also, you can ask within the Wiki-guitar group, and most of the members with real technical knowledge have vintage guitars of their own as well. Last but not least, is the photo of Roger McGuinn. I'll keep looking for band photos for The Byrds, but it looks like you will have to assemble a montage of the different members' faces, as we did on the band photos for Alun Davies' Sweet Tuesday article, and The Rolling Stones. User:Moxy is excellent in that regard. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Byrds photos uploaded!
Howdy. I placed the two David Crosby photos -one on the Crosby/Nash article, and the other on the biography page for Crosby. However! I uploaded several free images of The Byrds-- mainly, the ones you wanted. See Roger McGuinn's article, where I placed two of him- one with the Byrds and the other fairly recent. Here are the other photos:, and .. You asked for these, please place them on the article(s). Oh, BTW, please call me by my first name, Leah. My last name: DosSantos translates to "TwoSaints" in Spanish (although in Portugese, it means something completely different. Ah well. I already placed the David Crosby pics I left on this talk page, One is on Crosby's page, and the other is on the Crosby & Nash page, but I don't WP:OWN, so you can of course move them. My username is the same throughout all Wikipedas, so if you want, check my recent contribs there if you aren't sure I gave you all the photos you requested, though the most recent one was for a 1972 shot of The Rolling Stones, but the others I uploaded of The Byrds for you are just prior to it. Feels nice. Wikignomes never tend to get credit for tedious work which is often outside the Wikipedia itself, just haggling over photos! About 80% of those on the Rolling Stones photos for all their articles I uploaded.. and when we couldn't find a good free image of the band, I began thinking of putting them into a montage, which you see there now.


 * Last things I forgot.. Photo etiquette is usually thus: the newest photo of an individual is expected to be placed in the infobox, while the others should be added chronologically, keeping with the text as much as possible. Since Roger McGuinn had none, I put one recent photo in color in his infobox, and then added the other 1972 photo after it. Obviously you can also trim pics but if you do so, be sure even more so that the photographer's name is on it, and any derivitive use shows who he is- often, I change the file name to show the photographer's name in it to help protect them from plagiarized. The Byrds photos would need watching! Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Should I assume that you have already seen this link for The Byrds? Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I comment so much! I'm computer illiterate, but think 'YOU should leave the White/McGuinn pic where I put it, but after, also crop it to provide a photo of Clarence White, since he has no photo- same is true for any others missing a photo. BTW, more answers.


 * 1) I would try contacting the record label for pics- it can't hurt! But they may not understand the Creative Commons use and worse, not be willing to give up commercial value for their photos. I had that problem with Cat Stevens' label and I knew nothing about ORTS either.
 * 2) The link in the comment last time is from Emmylou Harris's site of some kind, with Gram Parsons too. Even if you aren't sure if the sites is a reliable references, their links may be valuable in tracing back to the original writers and photographers who you can then ask for permission!
 * 3) Photos of David Crosby, and Roger McGuinn should remain where I put them for now. Please place them on the intended Byrds articles and crop those we've discussed. Asking photographers for vintage photos for our use and not promptly showing them the results right away causes them a lot of anxiety- they can't even be sure this isn't a scam! Many have been offered serious payment in book deals, and we can only offer them a link to their photos in Wikimedia Commons, and name of theirs, -usually not even that on the front of the page with the photo captions.
 * 4) The sound clips are great. I would, however, add one of The Byrds singing in the song, "Wasn't Born to Follow" by the songwriting team Carole King and Gerry Goffin -who provided hit songs to many artists, including James Taylor. The song was used in Easy Rider's Easy Rider (soundtrack), remains in maybe the top 5 songs that represent the 1960s turmoil. Other than being an anthem -partly due to the Cult film's classic songs, it features country music inflections, such as use of steel guitar. It's like, the only song missing from having a song page on several albums like: The Best of The Byrds: Greatest Hits, Volume II. Listen to it! Here: . Think about it! Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree on all points you made! I wasn't aware that the Notorious Byrd Brothers had the clip of "Wasn't Born to Follow". And, too, I agree that it does deserve it's own article. The Carole King/Gerry Goffin songwriting angle is worth a little more mention, b/c as was pointed out in that album, the Byrds had several competant songwriters. I dunno.. it was the start of the singer-songwriter era between late 1960s on, and maybe that's why. I'm only speculating, of course. Well, I think you are doing a fabulous job on The Byrds. I'm curious as to why you chose them to work upon as opposed to others. So many musicians are worthy of such efforts! Anyway, if there's anything I can still do, let me know. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Good plan, then- I'll see about the Rickenbacker photo you want. I'm always curious as to what songs mean, and also in how music moves people. For myself, I was raised with no knowledge of computers and (still pretty much live within) abject poverty, (by now-North American standards) so my abilities in the Wikipedia are somewhat limited. I've loved blues rock the most- Eric Clapton, Rory Gallagher, Mick Taylor, and The Rolling Stones-- those are the ones I'd like to assist, but I don't take a lead role as with Derek Trucks, just since there's so much to do. I get lost. I'm happy you are editing the Byrds. Other bands ignored include Little Feat and The Allman Brothers Band. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Coffee?
Hi Paul, long time no news, hope you're doing fine. Recently I've created an article, Irish Coffee that I wrote almost a year ago. It was just ready waiting there to be double checked. I was wondering if you could read it and if necessary edit for better flow? if you have time.. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have vegan oatmeal cranberry cookies ; ) Want some? And wow, that was so fast, thank you for the edits. 8-track recording studio, ha ha, well, I was really in trouble what to choose there, good thing you checked the link! Just checked the specified singles, all is fine there and also figured a missing name, added too. Not mentioned in the article, though. The story behind is really complicated, at some point you lose track who played where, what.. About the charts, I looked it up earlier, was wondering about it, too but couldn't find. Now looked it up again, couldn't find.. Will be checking time to time, mebbe some blog would post an interview or so, sometime later. Actually there was one, when I wrote the article I used it but by the time I created the article it was gone broken, the link. Thanks again, Paul. Have a great rest of the day. ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning Paul. Get as much as cookies you want ; ) About the Humo magazine, it was in the article, I had written but as you pointed out, couldn't figure what ttt was referring to. So, just removed it. Since it's not the Belgian charts but the magazine's, I thought it wouldn't be much important to mention. It must be top ten something, or something top ten.. Will dig it a lil bit more now. ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Found somethings. Check this one out. Humo's national singles chart? It's listed number 5 though, not number 7 as the article mentioned. There are a lot more press releases but do you know Flemish? On the other hand, while I was looking for charts I stumbled upon the last fm page for the band which tells that the band is no longer active.. The official website of the band under anno 2004 section it tells that they are reformed but wouldn't mentioned about being disbanded as the Belgian Metal website. Is that okay to leave the article as it is now? ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good evening, Paul! I just did some edits about the Humo magazine according to your advices. How does it look now? Feel free to edit the article anytime you want if you think it's necessary. ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, cool, thanks ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, they replaced the edit link, argh.. Well, anyway, I wanted to tell that I found some footage of Irish Coffee uploaded by the Belgian Metal History, thought you'd like to see, here; "can't take it" and "the show". Second one is also partly an interview but not in English.. ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul, as far as I know from your user page, yeah you enjoy more psych folk, right? I'm mostly into garage, punk, psych rock, freakbeat, etc... But I like most types of music, including rawk, too : )But in general the case for the bands I want to create pages is that there are no information out there at all, so just cannot start a page. Also, the existing articles here in Wikipedia about the sixties bands are mostly unreferenced, I'm working on them nowadays. I sent you the footage since it's always nice to see the band that you create/work on the article for, no? Uhmm, the "edit" in here was on the right side, now they replaced it on the left with a pencil icon on it.. I was so used to being it on the right. ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning Paul. Sure, Irish Coffee fall in the "rawk" part we're talking about here : ) As it's written in the article, hard rock.. I was trying to tell you that other than garage, freakbeat, etc. I enjoy listening to some hard rock bands, too. Also, early '70s heavy progressive rock bands, I enjoy listening to. But again, I like most types of music : ) About the '60s music related articles, what does it take to create a Wikiproject? Wikiproject '60s music.. Sounds cool to me. It would work, there are several editors here, I see traces of them in every article of '60s band I edit. "There are relatively few serious wikipedians on here whose particular area of knowledge is sixties bands." Yes, sure but also the problem is that there is really not much of reliable sources that you can support the article with.. When you create the page with like even five different sources it gets tagged as non-notable, as it happened to one of the articles I initiated as you already helped out to remove the tag. Well, for now I go with only searching for references for the articles that has no reference which takes horrible amount of time but still worth it (I don't do much editing nowadays, though, busy with work a lot). I dislike seeing the unreferenced articles here. I learned a lot from you, especially about formatting, thanks for all the help. Have a great day, Paul. ~ Elitropia (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rickenbacker
Well, here's the guitar that you requested. I believe it can be added with a little cleanup to the Rickenbacker guitar article as well. That was mentioned on my talk page-- an amazing thing, of all the thousands of talk pages, he ends up on mine, and isn't even a Wikipedia or Commons editor! What are the odds?!! Also makes me feel special, and is the reason I treasure the few barnstars that I have. Not to show-off; I know there's a bunch of them, but b/c I do so much of my work outside the Wikipedias (in roughly 8 languages- but mostly here). Having to look, contact, and then email again to explain Creative Commons licensing wears you out! But b/c I don't keep lists of everything I ever did, or whatever, I find myself challenged a lot more by far newer editors, which should not happen in 95% of the time. Plus edit counts do not include Commons work and upload, nor editing on other Wikipedias in other languages. Ah, well. I'm good at whining! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

More photo sources?
I found more photos of The Byrds and wonder if they will help your work on the article. I don't yet know the photographer, but it would seem that he was either a member of a later Byrds lineups, or at least a session player: I think the photos might be a good fit for some of your text; there are two band photos of the Michael Clarke lineups in 1992. See here: Band photo with Rick Roberts, and another lineup: (Band with Skip Battin). And, again,. The poster even created a collage of lineups:. [The first photo I noticed has in the comment section "me, with.. [I forget, something like ..me wearing white jeans". It's part of a 7 photo set, too, with excellent pics. It doesn't say his name, but in one of the concert photos, he comments that he, (on stage with the others) was mentioning him wearing white jeans. None of his photos mention his name, but the other photos not in his Byrds set say "JS" in the description. Could that be Jimmi Seiter by chance? Question: for song articles here in en.Wiki, there are photos of singles records- the record, not the cover, though. I wonder, I don't know the rules for them, but since I see a lot of album and song articles with covers at the top of the infobox AND at the bottom. Here are two I can upload with a rationale: (promo record of "Mr. Tambourine Man" (doutful?- already a GA article)- the other is of "I'll Feel a Whole Lot Better here: . Anyway, let me know. Let me know what you think. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. Believe it or not, I did read the text in the article- because the "bogus byrds" versions were mentioned, I thought maybe one lineup from then would still work at the article's ending. Sort of showing the lineup, for example, and commenting that it was this diversion from the original Byrds that cause so much dischord. The other thought was that some of the musicians there are missing photos on their personal articles-- example- Rick Roberts, has no photo, and I'm finding more often these days, when the artist is sort of obscure or out of date, it's necessary to slice up the photo to get one member's image for the infoboxes. The question about the record singles themselves- I've seen some elaborate articles that show those photos somewhere, as well as a few GA or FA rated articles on songs. Just wondered, that's all. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Roger McGuinn
That's great about using the photo, as I am certain the photographer will be happy. Thin Lizzy passed GA review; it would be kind if you congratulate him- he literally has been the sole driving force on the whole thing- and the related ones too. Just let me know if you need help from me with something I might achieve with some measure of ability! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rfa for Catfish Jim and the Soapdish
There's an Rfa for Catfish Jim, one of the handful of editors who, like you, have consistently been a help and inspiration. I hope you'll take a look and vote if possible: Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Free images
One photographer put together a set of photos of Graham Nash and David Crosby:. Granted, they aren't the best of his work, but with a little lightening, could be OK to use. At the bottom of that page, there are other things too. Just wondered what you thought or if any would work on other articles. I'm not feeling well, so my apologies.
 * Yes, I agree with the quality of the photos as an important factor. I'll look for others-- I'm sure there are some. Nobody seems to have put in much work on any member of CSNY, CSN, David Crosby & Graham Nash, or any combination of those four. I wish they'd go for it like you have with The Byrds. I just don't have the time (or knowledge) to attempt even a biography for one of them! User:Mudwater is also very protective of any Grateful Dead, and other 1960s bands (yeah I know about no WP:OWN, but I like him, so I try to tread lightly there as well). I would love to get more photo from David Gans, who provided the Crosby and Nash photos I uploaded, and who is notable as well, having lived with the Grateful Dead and performed with them countless times.. come to think of it, you may find help with The Byrds if you want more images. Finally, what about that set list photo at the bottom of that Flickr page I mentioned? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Who to ask?
Hi, Paul. It's been a while I wasn't around since I was busy with work. Today came to see how goes it and I figured in my user page, on the left side there happenst to be a languages section and then it goes to some language I don't even know what it is. What is happening? I didn't know who to ask, guess I know no admins, or can't think of any. It is not me who created that account in another language. What to do? thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Asked it in Administrators' noticeboard, they fixed it already, it seems it was a userbox causing it to happen. Hope you are doing fine, have a great day : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad you got it sorted out. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility
This was uncalled for. You've been here long enough to realize that. For future info, wp:OR is policy, not a guideline. And "challenge" doesn't mean "blindly revert while insulting fellow editors". LeadSongDog come howl!  04:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll assume you didn't intend incivility, but telling long established editors to familiarize themselves with core policies is something that is easily taken as rude. Please think twice next time. LeadSongDog come howl!  13:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Byrds
I have reviewed and passed The Byrds as GA. I noticed when checking the article history towards the end of the review that it was in fact nominated by User:PJtP, but as you appear to have done most of the work, I think that you deserve credit for a good article on an interesting topic, thankfully removed from the general chart dominated trivia of many music GA nominations. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats, Paul! Will read it all at once while listening to the Byrds, awesome work ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Elitropia! Thanks for the congratulations. It took a fair bit of work/time to get The Byrds article up to that standard but I think it was worth it in the end. I hope you enjoy reading it. I plan to just do some vague Wiki-tinkering for a while now, before I get involved in getting another article up to GA standard...although having said that, a number of The Byrds' album articles are pretty close to being ready for GA review. Hmmmmm. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Byrds was
"The Byrds was" is correct. 'The Byrds' is the name of the band; it does not refer to a plurality of Byrds. It is singular, and 'The Byrds were' is grammatically incorrect in American English. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  01:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me for butting in. Please read American and British English differences, to which you have already been pointed.  The last sentence of that reads:" Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Saints are the champions, with one major exception: largely for historical reasons, in American English, the United States is is almost universal." Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A band is a singular entity, regardless of its name or number of members; you're not counting, 'One Byrd, two Byrds'..., etc. I am correct, but it's really not a big deal to me; this issue is just another of the many quirks that make Wikipedia so charming. Cheers. R ad io pa th y  •talk•  21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Excuse me also for butting in - as I understand it, there is some confusion in American English over this point, but in British English, band names always take the plural. The Beatles are, The Byrds are, The Doors are, Nirvana are, AC/DC are... etc. On Wikipedia generally, if the band is British then British grammar is used - see The Beatles or Thin Lizzy. For American bands like The Byrds, we let you guys fight it out ;) Football teams are similarly never singular entities; "Liverpool are the champions" etc, never "is the champion". Generic terms like "band" or "group" can take either the singular or the plural. These differences make English the most interesting language in the world. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying Bretonbanquet but if the band name is a plural proper noun, like The Killers or The Beatles for example, then it will be "The Killers are" or "The Beatles were" even in American English. The difference occures only when the band name isn't a plural proper noun - so in American English it should be "Nirvana was", whereas in British English it would be "Nirvana were" because "Nirvana" is not a plural proper noun. As for Radiopathy's last response, again it's unconvincing - the words Byrds (birds) or Beatles (beetles) are clearly plural nouns. Offering a vauge "I am correct" with nothing to back it up is not a convincing counter argument, I'm afraid to say. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just Like A Woman
Hi Kohoutek1138, I've been very impressed by your work transforming JLAW into a more solid and sourced article. I've re-written the article a bit, adding the new info which Sean Wilentz published in his book, Bob Dylan In America. Hope you find it all makes sense. This came about as a consequence of my attempts to improve the quality of Blonde On Blonde article. best wishes Mick gold (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul Clayton' death
If you're going to quote the rulebook at me, the very least you could do is ascertain the facts. Claiming an undefined &lt;ref&gt;Clinton Heylin, Bob Dylan: Behind The Shades - The Biography&lt;/ref&gt; (added here) supports your change is outside any standard of verifiability you imagine applies only to me and not to yourself. If you have any [verifiable] evidence that Paul Clayton died previous to 30 March 1967, I'd love to see it. Fan |  talk  19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's that time!
Put this someplace nice. :)

Congrats! Hard work should go rewarded! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Another one...
Hope you're not sick of these!

The Byrds
Hi, there is a discussion about the use of non-free images in the article at WT:Non-free content. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Byrds - The Only Girl I Adore.ogg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Byrds - The Only Girl I Adore.ogg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Attention to detail
Greetings. I think you mean well but have misinterpreted what we are trying to achieve with some of the edits for the H.P. Lovecraft template.

Breaking it down:


 * The Cthulhu Mythos belongs in Legacy/Influence, as it is clearly stated and proven it came after Lovecraft. Cause and effect.
 * The band deserve mention with all other cultural aspects at Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, not as an individual listing here. Other more notable additions from art and science are not listed in the template, but grouped with the others. Why this one? Because of your interest in music?
 * The Simon Necronomicon. Unless you can find a source that links it specifically to Lovecraft - and it has to be specific and not implied - it is out.

Finally, please avoid silly assumptions and statements about edit warring in summaries. It is not true and all that is required is a quick think about the logic involved in the placement of these articles. PurpleHeartEditor  (talk)  13:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have responded to this on the template talk page in order to keep the discussion all in one place. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Paul, thank you for watching out the articles. I've been busy loads and came time to time to check. I've seen you and few other editors would take good care of them. Hope all is good with you. Now I'm trying to gather up online information of a band that I want to create an artcile for. I'll let you know at first place once it's aired ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul! I just created the article, The Sparkles. I'm sure you know about the band. Do you mind a look? And please feel free to edit where ever you think it's necessary. Also, there is one issue; from my understanding, the third line up recorded "The U.T." but according to Allmusic Lucky Floyd was not there when recordin it which is not correct since all olter sources would say Floyd was there, plus on the record it says featuring Floyd. But then it was not clear if it was the 3th or the 4th line up, since they both included Floyd. Any of the sources would mention about this but in this source we see that it tells "Floyd states that their first record was recorded in a garage studio in Clovis, New Mexico and released on Caron Records."...(which is released in 1962) and continues "In about 1965 Larry Parks, a Nashville producer with Texas connections, offered to record The Sparkles"....and says "At the time these records were being recorded (and before they were released in 1967) The Sparkles had evolved into a third generation group. Brownfield native Gary Nunn was now on keyboard and a new drummer, Jimmy Marriot...." which is the 4th line up in the wiki article now. So, if I understand correctly, the UT was recorded with the earlier line up which is the third in wiki article. If so, the sentence "The band recorded their first single "The U.T." (stands for Untitled) in a garage studio in Clovis, New Mexico in 1962 and it was released on Caron Records." is ready to be added in the article, but I would like to get your opinion on that. Thanks in advance! ~ Elitropia (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, ta! I learned it all from you, thanks for being such a great editor! I'll place the barnstar on my user page!! About the author Jeff Jarema part, he doesn't exactly say so, the title of the liner note is "Never mind the Beatles, here's the Sparkles!". He starts telling about how great band the Sparkles were and covers the '65-'67 line-up (since the EP includes that line-up's tunes). I attached that as a supportive reference, the Lone Starr Music mentions that more clearly and all other articles emphasize the '65-'67 line-up. So, I'm not sure if it is okay to just attribute it directly to the author. What do you say? ~ Elitropia (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, great methinks, you would like to do the edit? Feel free to do it : ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks great, now with your edits all look better, thanks again.. Hmm, one more thing, I see now in "new pages" that the article is still not patrolled, and I remember what happened with Diddy Wah Diddy. Is it too late for you to patrol it, since you also did edits on the page? Should I go seek for another editor? ~ Elitropia (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what I guessed, best you don't patrol since you have contributed in the early stage. Just for the record, it was you who patrolled Diddy Wah Diddy, I remember it being tagged as not reviewed, since no one patrolled it for over a month and you had no edits on the page, so you reviewed it : ) Thank you for all that, I shall go ask to another editor for patrolling it, I don't want the same happening to this page as happened to DWD. Have a nice day! ~ Elitropia (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Happy new year, Paul! I wish you all the best.. x ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What will you gimme?
You're quite right about reliable third party refs of course (the ease of the ubiquitous YouTube notwithstanding). I see from here that you are a bit of a Byrds fan. But how's your knowledge of the pronunciation favoured by fellow North American Pete Seeger? Many thanks. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC).
 * No problem. Many thanks for the fullsome responses. One can only assume that the Oysterband's (and others') modern mistake is some kind of homage to McGuinn, or indeed to Collins. Rhymney is standard Welsh spelling - cf Cymru. But that Chateaus' version of the spelling and pronunciation is quite an oddity, isn't it? (although the arrangemnt is remarkably McGuinn-esque). I'll keep an eye out for any supporting refs. BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and we might also want to check exactly when "robbed" became "killed"? BridesheadRecarpeted (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Bride of Re-Animator
I've re-added Bride of Re-Animator to Template:H.P. Lovecraft. Your reason for deleting it was: "Bride of Re-Animator isn't a Lovecraft adaptation, it's just a spin off using some of his characters." In fact, Bride of Re-Animator is based on parts of the original story "Herbert West–Reanimator." It doesn't make sense to exclude this film while including films that aren't directly based on anything Lovecraft wrote, like In the Mouth of Madness, Cast a Deadly Spell, and Witch Hunt. Not to mention that Beyond Re-Animator is included, even though it has less to do with HPL than Bride. DT29 (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I didn't realise that part of the movie was based on Herbert West–Reanimator, I thought that it was an all-original story using some of Lovecraft's characters, rather than an adaptation of one of his stories. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
freshacconci</FONT><FONT COLOR="#B22222"> talk</FONT><FONT COLOR="#2F4F4F">talk</FONT> 14:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TheByrdsGloryGlory.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:TheByrdsGloryGlory.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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Rock Music in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Rock Music for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in case it matters...
Just in case it matters, I uploaded a really nice photo of Carole King taken just a couple months ago at the JFK Library:. I doubt it applies to any of your editing, but I remember when you were working on The Byrds and some of her sound coming into Easy Rideer... so, that's it. Hope all's well.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I saw a recent edit
in The Byrds about them not playing on the first album and thought "I don't think that's right - I need to talk to Kohoutek about this." But now that I have had the time to get back to it I see that you have the situation well under control. I am a long time Byrds fan (played 3 songs on OMAR's Dance Party on KLDK last night) and have been thrilled with what you have done with the article over time. Life is good. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up Carptrash, but yeah...I'm on it. You're absolutely right to question something stating that The Byrds didn't play on their debut album. It is completely untrue, as a listen to the raw session tapes for that LP (found on bootleg releases) confirms. More of a concern to me was the unencyclopedic and non-neutral tone of what that IP user wrote. Not to mention the accusation that none of the band actually wrote the songs that are credited to them. I checked out the cited source and it's not even a properly published book, but a self-published online source found exclusively on conspiracy theorist's websites, alongside articles about the "holocaust myth" and the "moon landing hoax" etc. It served as a timely reminder to me that crazy people use the internet too! --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eight Miles High
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Eight Miles High you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please see the nomination page for my comments. <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am lost
somewhere in America, but when I get found again, in a few days, I'll have 8 Miles High. einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eight Miles High
The article Eight Miles High you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eight Miles High for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? <font face="Arial" size="2em"> Statυs (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy Bro!
I was in a reflective mood and started listening to "American Pie" from memories from being a 12 year old kid, and then realized of all the various rock bands and musicians listened in the song. I recalled the references to "Eight Miles High" might not have been in your beautiful piece on The Byrds. (OK, I'm lazy, sue me!) Also just because we hadn't chatted in a while and I hope all is well in your world! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey stranger! Need your help!
Actually, I'm "stranger" than you-- sorry, different meaning of the word. Hope you have a good sense of humor! I have questions for you, OK? It's about the purpose in having sections at the end of most biographies, and their actual purposes! I completely understand the need for both a reference section AND especially inline citations (I like CITE best). WHY do we have sections labeled "See also", when most of that info is supposed to be woven into the text anyway? I suspect new users starting their own articles might try to pack stuff in there, to justify new stubs as containing enough info to pass the Notability requirements? But the one that really bugs me are sections titled "Notes". That is confusing enough; does it mean refs? Does it mean "further reading"? What about- hmm.. for lack of a better description, the editors' commentaries there?!! WTH? Would you look at Steve Poltz and check out the 4 refs there for me? I mean, please click on them and examine their veracity. The first I just added from Allmusic. The 2nd- someone left a video version of a TV show- would you consider that as a reference acceptable, or copyright violation? But it is the last two which were there already, someone put there, and I view as... WHAT??? Since I'm clueless, in the past I'd create a "Notes" section, and just shove that kind of thing there, but now I'd like to edit such articles properly. No rush.. thanks? I've missed you! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)