User talk:Rlendog/Archive 4

Question Re: "Mr. Tambourine Man" article
Hi Rlendog! I've been watching the edits you've made to the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article and they're all really good and well sourced. However, one thing in the article jumped out at me. In the Structure And Lyrics section it says "Dylan began playing the song in love concerts as early as May 17. 1964". What's a "love concert"???? Is this a typo? Kohoutek1138 13:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely a typo. Should be "live concerts".  I'll fix that now.  BTW, I liked your edits to the article too.  I've been wanting to get this article to GA status for a long time, and your edits inspired me to get moving.  It will probably be a long process, since there are currently a lot of unsourced statements that may be difficult to find sources for, but they shouldn't be deleted until ample opportunity is given for editors to provide sources.  But would be interested in working with me on this? Rlendog (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Working with you to improve or find sources for this article? Yeah, that's cool with me...I'll do what I can. I'm on a bit of a Byrds crusade at the moment, there's a lot of entries for their albums & singles that are in a very sorry state, so I'm steadily working through them all, adding inline references, improving grammar and deleting outlandish or incorrect statements that are clearly only one person's opinion. I'm a Byrds nerd, what can I say? Obviously, while doing this, there's a certain amount of crossover with some of Dylan's stuff, since The Byrds covered quite a lot of his songs. But if I can also help improve the Dylan related sections of an article at the same time - so much the better. Just a few days ago, for example, I did quite a lot of Dylan-centric work on the "All I Really Want to Do" article. So, is there anything specific that you'd like me to look at or help out with, as regards the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article? I'll be guided by your suggestions. Kohoutek1138 01:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in particular. I have access to a lot more Dylan material than Byrds material, so any sourced information you could add to the Byrds section would be especially helpful.  Also, finding sources (if they exist) for the factoids in the last section, and of course any relevant Dylan material would be great too.  If you are a Byrds nerd, I am sure we will cross paths on other articles - two near the top of my desired improvement list are Chimes of Freedom and It's All Over Now, Baby Blue.  And I haven't checked Lay Down Your Weary Tune in a while. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought there was an article for "Lay Down Your Weary Tune", but it seems to be redlinked so either it got deleted or I am misremebering. I'll have to see if I have enough sources to do something about that. Rlendog (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since there's not even a re-direct page for Lay Down Your Weary Tune, I don't think there's ever been a page for it. Does the song meet Wikipedia notability criteria? I ask because it wasn't a single by either Dylan or The Byrds (and therefore didn't chart) and neither was it released on any of Dylan's proper albums. I guess it comes down to how much notability it has in its own right. As for Chimes of Freedom and It's All Over Now, Baby Blue, I haven't looked at those articles yet but I will do in the next few days. The Byrds version of "Chimes" probably doesn't warrant its own sub-section, since it was only an album track (and the same for "Lay Down Your weary Tune"), but I'll see if I can improve any mentions of their version in the main article. The Byrds version of "Baby Blue" might need its own sub-section though because The Byrds intended to release it as their 3rd single but it got cancelled and they then released a different version of the song on an album in 1969. Anyway, I'll have a look for references for those "factoids" in the last section of “Mr. Tambourine Man” and think about expanding The Byrds sub-section. I'm not sure The Byrds section needs anymore references though, does it? Kohoutek1138 13:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if Lay Down Your Weary Tune meets notability, but I suspect that there is enough material to satisfy WP:N, given how much has been published on just about anything Dylan wrote in the 1960s. I'm just not sure that the sources I have access to would be adequate.  I think the Byrds section looks good.  The only items that may still need citations are:
 * The group's complex harmony work, as featured on "Mr. Tambourine Man", became another major characteristic of their sound.
 * Rather than using band members, Melcher hired The Wrecking Crew, a collection of top session musicians including Hal Blaine, Larry Knechtel and Leon Russell, who (with McGuinn on guitar) provided the backing track over which McGuinn, David Crosby and Gene Clark sang vocals. (But this may be covered by the citation on the next sentence)
 * The last paragraph on the reunion. Rlendog (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've sorted out references for those three statements in the Byrds sub-section. Kohoutek1138 19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you might like to know that I've had a go at improving the "Chimes of Freedom" article. I've kind of restructured and expanded it, with the addition of multiple inline references. It's still got a way to go but it's already a lot better than it was. Kohoutek1138 19:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Chimes of Freedom" is looking great! By t he way, when you do references, it is usually easier to use the citation templates that are available at WP:CIT.  That insures that if the preferred format changes, the changes will be reflected automatically.  It also takes care of some of the formatting so that you don't need to worry about it.  By the way, do you have the page range you cited from in the Rogan book, at least in the "Mr. Tambourine Man" article?  And also the page from the British charts book (the Tony Brown book)?  That may be necessary when it gets reviewed for Good Article status, and Amazon doesn't have a "look inside" facility for those books.  I suppose I can try Google Books too.  It would be ideal to include the page numbers (if relevant) to the "Chimes of Freedom" references too. Rlendog (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a page ref for the British chart book on Google, but I had to switch to 2004 edition. I hope you don't object. There was no preview available for the Rogan book though.  But maybe that won't be a problem if the refs are taken from across the entire book rather than a set page range. Rlendog (talk) 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the advice re: formatting of inline references. I'd noticed that you had been changing them from how I initially had them, on both the "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "Chimes of Freedom" articles, I'll try to follow suit in the future. As for using a page range from a later edition of the Tony Brown book, that's not a problem...after all, the chart information for 1960s records wouldn't change between editions. As for a page range for the Johnny Rogan Timeless Flight book, that's a little tricky because the references come from pages scattered throughout the book. If you can bear with me though, I'll get back to you with specific pages if I can. Kohoutek1138 16:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, we got "Mr. Tambourine Man" expanded enough that it qualified for DYK.  It looks like the hook will be posted to the main page at about 8:30 EDT (about 8 hours after I post this message). Rlendog (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's All Over Now, Baby Blue edits
Hi Rlendog. Sorry to just dump my edits to this article on top of yours. I was obviously working on it at the same time as you. I tried for a while to incorporate your changes into my version of the article but you were changing it all too fast for me to keep up! Hopefully you can go back and copy & paste from older versions of the page any of your contributions that I've displaced. I've altered the structure of the whole article considerably but I think this format works pretty well. Again, sorry to step on your toes with this. Kohoutek1138 16:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I forgot to say, I gave Them's cover its own section because it's arguably the most influential and famous cover of the song. Kohoutek1138 16:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Your structure works, although I did combine the two short last sections, since TV and movies could be considered other genres as well.  Edit conflicts are one of the dangers of Wikipedia. Since they maintain the history, I was able to put back the stuff that got overwritten.  By the way, Paul Clayton is speculated to be Baby Blue at least as much as David Blue, so I reworded to reflect that there are several possibilities.  I'll try to expand it a bit more today.  One possible Baby Blue that generates a lot of speculation is Dylan himself, and I have a number of sources to expound on that. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool...glad there's no hard feelings. You know, when I went to post my changes and it came up with an edit confict message I knew that it would be you! :-) As I'm sure you're aware, I've been steadily expanding the info on covers of the song over the last day or two but today I thought I'd have a crack at expanding Dylan's version. Anyway, as usual, your contributions are really good and thorough. I did manage to get some good info on Dylan's version and Them's cover myself today, so hopefully you'll be able to find space for my meager contributions in the article somewhere. As for who Baby Blue is, my money's on what Paul William's said about the song not really being about anyone in particular at the time Dylan wrote it, but who knows? Kohoutek1138 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your contributions are hardly meager, even in the Dylan section. I wasn't sure we'd be able to do it, but it looks like we made the 5x expansion required for DYK.  I already nominated us for "Chimes of Freedom", but you may want to start thinking of a good hook for this article.  I'll think about it too. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of DYK thoughts I had were
 * ... that Bringing It All Back Home was the 3rd consective album that Bob Dylan ended with a farewell song, and
 * ... that Joan Baez has been considered to be the subject of "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" and also covered it herself.
 * Of these two, I prefer the 2nd. But maybe there is something better we can use, maybe based on the use of Them's version in movies. 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I prefer the second "factoid" too. My only suggestion for DYK would be:-
 * ... that every song on Side 2 of Bob Dylan's Bringing It All Back Home album was recorded on the same day.
 * One other thing, I know that you have sources to back it up and that it is a genuinely held theory by some folks but the mention about Donovan being a possible inspiration for "Baby Blue" doesn't really hold up to even the most casual of scrutiny. For a start, Dylan wrote the song in January 1965 but Donovan didn't break onto the UK music scene until the release of his first single in March 1965 (and didn't become famous in the U.S. until the middle of that year). Furthermore, Dylan didn't become aware of Donovan until he landed in England for his May 1965 British tour. In the movie Don't Look Back Alan Price of The Animals can be seen telling a clueless Dylan exactly who Donovan is. I don't know what you think about this? My thoughts are that the Donovan mention should stay in the article but perhaps be ammended to indicate that there's strong evidence against it.Kohoutek1138 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go with the 2nd factoid then. The problem with the "every song on side 2" is that it is not specific to this song, so there would be no obvious link to this article.  As for the Donovan speculation, I think we should remove it then.  Just because a couple of books suggest the possibility doesn't mean it has to be in the article, especially if the editors working on it think it is very tenuous.  If someone else adds it back, I wouldn't remove it, since it is reliably sourced, but between us, if we agree it is unlikely, we can remove it.  That paragraph is pretty long anyway.  One of these days I need to actually sit and watch Don't Look Back. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, if you think its for the best, remove the mention of Donovan being a possible inspiration for the song because as I say, it borders on being blatently impossible given the sequence of events in both performers' careers. However, I think the info about Dylan performing the song to Donovan in a hotel room in D. A. Pennebaker’s Don't Look Back documentary should stay because that's a very famous performance of the song and one that is referenced a lot in Dylan literature as well as in other places. Maybe just relocate it to somewhere more appropriate within the article. Oh, by the way, I came up with a good hook for a DYK in the Byrds' section of "Chimes of Freedom"...Did you know that David Crosby is really just a great big crybaby? ;-) Kohoutek1138 20:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had taken the Donovan stuff out, because I thought the Don't Look Back performance was already covered elsewhere. But I guess we cleaned that up, so I put back the statment about Dylan playing the song to Donovan in the film (without the speculation that he was the original subject) into the paragraph covering other appearances of the song.  As for the Chimes hook, if you really want to suggest it, you can add it as an ALT hook suggestion on T:DYK.  You have to reword it some, but I would be fine with that. ;) Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha...no, I was only joking really. The "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue" article is looking pretty darn good now I think. Kohoutek1138 01:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! The one thing that probably could be improved is the WP:LEDE, which really should be a summary of the article.  But that is hardly essential. Rlendog (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Favor to ask
How's it going? :-) I was wanting to ask a favor.  From the beginning of October to the end of December, I will be in Madagascar doing some volunteer work for Azafady.  I know the general Wiki community usually does a good job keeping an eye on things and reverting vandalism, but would you mind keeping an extra close eye on the lemur articles I've been working on?  I'm mostly concerned about vandalism sneaking in between edits/reverts/etc. and not getting caught.  It's not the end of the world if you can't.  I don't mind coming home in early January and doing comparisons to see what's changed while I've been gone. –Visionholder (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I can't guarantee I'll catch everything, but I'll do my best.  Sounds like a great trip, right up your alley! Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re:Band notabilty within an article
Hi Rlendog, I hope you won't mind but I need a little bit of advice on a wiki article and you seem as if you're a pretty experienced wikipedian. I've been working on the "Spanish Harlem Incident" article and today someone has added info about a cover by a band called Burden Of Paradise. I'm not sure this band meets wiki Notability criteria...they're basically an amateur band with little or no web presence outside of websites directly associated with the band (ie. MySpace). They do, however, have Snake Davis in the band. They almost certainly don't meet notability criteria for having their own article but I'm unsure of wiki's guidelines for mentions of small-time bands like this in other articles. What do you think? Should this be deleted or not? Kohoutek1138 17:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability (as discussed in detail at WP:N) is almost entitrely a concept of whether a subject should have a standalone Wikipedia article. As long as the subject itself is notable, details within the article that themselves would not meet the notability requirements for a standalone article are fine.  However, trivia is generally discouraged (I am not sure which guideline states that though; it does become an issue in good article WP:GA or featured article WP:FA, WPFL discussions for articles that get there.)  Of course, any facts should be verifiable WP:V and, especially if controversial or could be challenged, reliability sourced WP:RS.
 * I did not look at the Spanish Harlem article, but if the band that was added has a notable artists in it, then it doesn't sound like some youtube band that could be challenged on trivia grounds. If it is reliabily sourced (which sounds unlikely if the only coverage is myspace-like sites) then it should be fine to leave it in.  If not, I would add a  tag to let the editor know to add a source.  If no source is forthcoming, it may be okay to remove it (although you should give a good amount of time, at least several weeks, before considering doing so).  But even then, unless the article is being reviewed for GA status or something like that, I am not sure such removal would be necessary here. Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The other issue might be if this addition is advertising or spam WP:SPAM. If so, it is appropriate to remove.  Although I would still add the fact tag and see if a WP:RS is forthcoming. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, that clears things up a bit for me. I think I'll add a tag to the sentance and leave it at that. Cheers for the clarification. Kohoutek1138 14:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

RE:DYK
I've replied about the DYK problem on T:TDYK. Thanks for the review! Cheers,  I 'mperator 17:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Range maps
I was about to polish up the Madagascar range map template I had used for Ring-tailed Lemur so that I could start using it for other species, but I wanted to get your opinion first. It seems that much of WP:Tree of life uses very general (gray) region maps with no legends, unlike my template (which has color and will soon have a legend). Do you know of a reason for this standard? Should I abandon my template and simply modify File:Map of Madagascar.svg in order to fall in line? Or does a more colorful, detailed map go beyond a "minimum requirement" for a basic range map? Your thoughts? –Visionholder (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer your range maps. When I do my Central American money range maps I use the boring gray ones because they are easily available from Commons and relatively easy to use.  But I like yours much better.  I am not aware of any standard for Tree of Life range maps to use the gray format - I suspect it is due to availability.  You may want to double check if there is some standard, but I doubt there is, and you've gotten several articles to WP:FL with yours, so yours can't be much of a problem. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films July 2009 Newsletter
The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about a source's reliability
Hi, can you pitch in at Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Cubs managers/archive1? The source in question is Baseball America, which I seemed to have missed in one of your FLCs a few months ago. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Congrats on the medal. That's an impressive achievement. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded on the FLC page. I hope that helps.  Thank you for the congrats on the medal.  I only just noticed that! Rlendog (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld
Hi, I noticed your comments on the deletion entry for "The Bet". If you found that issue, does it maybe have comments on Seinfeld season two episodes (as I am currently trying to make a good/featured topic). Most notably on "The Ex-Girlfriend" and "The Pony Remark".-- Music 26/  11  22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The magazine definitely has comments on those two episodes. It covers all the episodes except maybe the last season, and I specifically remember "The Pony Remark".  But I have no idea where it is.  It is probably in one of about 20 boxes I have in my attic from when I moved. Rlendog (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't bother than. But remember me if you clean up your attic one day.-- Music 26/  11  10:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Props
Thanks for the refractor] of your comments on the cited AfD per AGF. Heaven knows that I've had to do that before. Cheers and keep up the good work.  young  american (wtf?) 11:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that, AfD brings out the worst in me. I still don't agree that there will never be enough material for a start class article (after all, books have been written and are likely to continue to be written about Britney, possibly including discussion of her songs) but I've already wasted enough electrons defending a Britney Spears song. Rlendog (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I might have you beat on "wasted electrons" here.  young  american  (wtf?) 11:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bobby Gregg
Hello! Your submission of Bobby Gregg at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Czech Out  ☎ |  ✍  18:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. I responded on the DYK template talk page.  I am fine with your ALT2, but, for the reasons I gave on the DYK page, I actually don't think there are problems with the original ones unless they recently changed the rules.  And thanks for the link to the Sounes book.  I don't have that one, and was able to add the reference you suggested (as well as a couple of others). Rlendog (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Monkey
Hi. I saw your recent edits to Monkey, in which you removed the paraphyletic group infobox with an edit summary, "Not a taxon; hence no need for a taxobox". In fact, this is not a taxobox, but instead a special type of infobox designed for usage on pages where the subject is a paraphyletic group. Monkeys are, according to references provided in the etymology section, one of these groups. I have not reverted your change; rather, I invite you to explain why you felt it was necessary to remove this infobox, because I do not understand your reasoning. Thanks, and happy editing. The Earwig (Talk &#124; Contribs) 01:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. I don't really see the point of having a "paraphyletic group" box, but people seem to like boxes on articles and I suppose it does no harm. Rlendog (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

MLB awards DYK
I tried to clarify my rationale for the original hook better at T:TDYK. Also, just to let you know, the fact you mentioned in the lead, along with the ref, was already used later in the article (the ref was actually an exact duplicate). However, I didn't think something like that qualified as an important element of a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD. I'm keeping an eye on the DYK nom periodically, so we can discuss the hook itself there. Thanks! KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights dispute
Sorry to bother you. I know you don't have any special rights, and I don't know your views on the topic, but I would appreciate it if you would offer your unbiased interpretation of a dispute I'm having the SlimVirgin over animal rights and his deletion of cited material. I respect your professional opinion. Furthermore, I feel that the resolution of this dispute could have very serious ramifications on the primate pages. (In fact, we had enough problems with it during the Primate FAC.) You can read the discussion on the HSUS talk page, as well as the editor assistance request. If you don't want to get involved, I'll understand. –Visionholder (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films August 2009 Newsletter
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Common univariate probability distributions‎
Hi Rlendog. Thanks for adding Laplace distribution to Common univariate probability distributions‎. Mainly out of curiousity, does it have applications in actuarial work? I'd dithered about whether to include it when I created the template but decided not to at the time, based partly on its absence from Outline of probability and partly on pageview statistics. I had to draw the line somewhere, as the idea of the template is to be less off-puttingly large than ProbDistributions. Inevitably the choice of what's "common" is somewhat arbitrary and subjective though, and there were other candidates I left out—in particular 'logistic distribution' gets a similar number of pageviews (and is more familiar to me personally). My aim was to keep each template group ('continuous' & 'discrete') to display on a single line in a reasonable-width browser window, which it still does at present, but probably wouldn't if another was added.

By the way, would you be interested in joining WikiProject Statistics? (Fine if not, I seem to have drifted away a bit myself recently, too much like the day job at times…) Regards, Qwfp (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer the last question first, I thought I had already joined WikiProject Statistics, but if not I can. My inputs may be intermittent depending on RL issues. As for the Laplace distribution, I have not used it for anything specifically actuarial, although I have never used a Weibull distribution for actuarial purposes either.  I have used the Laplace distribution to model certain economic data with greater kurtosis than a normal distribution (e.g., stock return, technically log-Laplace I suppose).  But I have come across the Laplace distribution (or double-exponential distribution) many times in various contexts.  Back when I was a statistics student it came up in a number of situations.  It was a long time ago, but a few I recall are as an example of a distribution where the MLE for the mean is the sample median, rather than the mean and as a driver for least absolute deviations regression and as a distribution that is not differentiable at the mean.  It is also the distribution that models the difference of two exponential variables.  More practically, it is the distribution that is generated by Laplace processes, which have various uses, but the ones I am familiar with are in finance.  There is theory that the excess kurtosis shown in stock market returns may be due to stocks following more of a Laplace motion process than a Brownian motion process.  And that theory has been developed to the point where there is a (complicated) version of the Black-Scholes model for Laplace rather than the more typically modelled normal distribution.  It is also important as one of the commonly used variants of the generalized normal distribution.  The Laplace distribution also shows up as an example in many probability books, such as Lukacs Characteristic Function book; I believe that the Laplace distribution was the only distribution included in that one at least that was missing from the template. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding your name to the list of WikiProject Statisticians. You've completely convinced me about the appropriateness of adding Laplace to that template. Best regards, Qwfp (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Specific page references for Rogan's Timeless Flight Revisited‎
Hi Rlendog, I got your message regarding specific page references for Johnny Rogan's Timeless Flight Revisited book, for the Mr. Tambourine Man article. I have found the relevant page numbers but they're kind of scattered throughout the book. However, they can be loosely grouped into three page spans; p49 - 63, p440 and p545. Should I therefore split the existing inline citations into three different references, rather than having them as one reference that states a rather large page range of p49 - 545 (I hope that makes sense)? Anyway, I'm perfectly happy to do this task but I'd just like some advice on the best way to proceed. Incidentally, I'm also gonna change one of those "Timeless Flight" references to a reference from Johnny Rogan's liner notes in the Mr. Tambourine Man CD booklet because it contains a better, more concise example of the particular factoid that one of references is supposed to justify. Kohoutek1138 12:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think splitting into three references makes a lot of sense. That is what I would do. Thanks! Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done that - I think it's OK. It looks alright to me. Kohoutek1138 16:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Baseball America query
See Giants2008's comment at Featured list candidates/List of New York Mets managers/archive3; your input would be appreciated. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Selected species- Portal:Primates
Hello, thank you for nominating a selected species. White-headed Capuchin has been accepted under a GA. Please paste the following code to this page to receive GFDL credit:

Once the page is saved, the species will go live in the portal. If you have further suggestions, feel free to nominate more. Thank you,  Zoo Fari  20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for nominating a selected species. Philippine Tarsier has been accepted under a GA. Please paste the following code to this page to receive GFDL credit:

Once the page is saved, the species will go live in the portal. If you have further suggestions, feel free to nominate more. Thank you,  Zoo Fari  20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A few things
First of all, I want to thank you for giving your unbiased opinion on the HSUS discussion, even though I feel it has gone nowhere (much to the delight of the animal rights supporters). I really appreciate you taking the time to read through all of that and writing a detailed opinion.

In regards to the upcoming Lemur re-write, I'm still not sure if I'll get it published before I leave for Madagascar. One of the things that might hold it up, even if I finish it before October 1, is that I would like to get credit for the DYKs, GAs, and FAs the article(s) will ultimately earn. I'm a little worried that I'll publish them in late September, and then while I'm gone someone might submit them for GAC and/or FAC. With the hundreds of hours I have (and will continue) to put into this, I would like to be involved (and, selfishly, get credit for) those reviews. What I'd like to know is whether or not you would be able to help me out and do a GA review (or several) shortly after publication, again, probably in mid- to late-September. I doubt anyone would push for FAC while I'm gone... but you never know. If you don't think you'll have time, that's fine. At this point, I can't even guarantee that I'll finish the page(s) before I leave.

Lastly, since you're one of the few people active in WP:PRIMATE, I wanted to let you know that after all of my detailed reading, especially regarding primate anatomy and genetic studies, I'm now firmly in the camp that opposes the Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini split among primates. As more evidence comes out, I would not be surprised if the taxonomy will change again in the next 10 years. I think it's quite clear that extant primates fall into 3 major branches: lorises & lemurs, tarsiers, and simians. Obviously, I'm not going to deviate from our taxonomic authorities when I write taxonomy sections or update taxoboxes, but do not be surprised if you read lemur articles that emphasize both "prosimian" and "strepsirrhine", instead of "phasing out" the supposedly "out-dated" prosimian mention. Just an FYI, that's all. –Visionholder (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure my answer on HSUS was quite what you hoped for, but my experience is that Wikipedia guidelines cause these sort of classification debates to degenerate to the lowest common denominator, or else end up at ArbComm. But that there is a well-sourced debate over the organization's characater does need to be addressed more prominently, even if Wikipedia is not designed to definitively fall on one side or the other.


 * On your last point, I am certainly not one to get too pedantic over whether the prosimian/simian split or the Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini split or some other split is valid. In fact, I recently added Prosimians as a topic to Portal:Primates (admittedly more as a practical matter so both lemurs and tarsiers could be handled within a single category). I admit that what I have seen to support the Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini split seems compelling to me, but I am hardly an expert, and I am sure there is more information that needs to come to light.  One thing that bugs me about Primate taxonomy is the way that all Old World Monkeys, from macaques to colobus monkeys are considered a single family, but the New World Monkeys, that I think almost have to be more closely related to each other, are split up into 3 or 4 or 5 different families.


 * On the rewrites, I am not sure I can promise to do a bunch of GA reviews. I have never done one before, and I am not sure reviewing is my strong point.  When I participate in FA and FL reviews, I always find that other reviewers find a bunch of issues I should have picked up but didn't.  That said, there is always a first, and it would probably be a good experience to try to do one.  So while I can't promise (RL scheduling issues also come into play - work, baby), I'll try to do my first on one of your articles if you submit it.  Its also been a while since I've been on the other end of a GA review, but I just nominated an article yesterday that I think is in good shape.  If that gets by with little trouble, I'll probably feel a lot better about my ability to identify GA issues. (Don't worry - I haven't neglected primates; I also started working to fix up Geoffroy's Spider Monkey with the intent of making it my next nomination.)


 * That said, I don't think anyone can deny you GA credit, even if someone else nominates. Certainly on DYK, if you write the article and someone else nominates it, you get the writer/expander credit.  And on FAC or FLC, if you are the dominant author and someone else nominates it, it will probably be quick failed on that basis alone (that actually happened on a list I primarily wrote - someone else nominated it for FLC and three editors immediately attacked him and voted to fail it, although they then got me to nominate it myself and it eventually passed).  GA may be a little different since the rules state that anyone can nominate any article.  But even if someone else nominates the article, you are still entitled to take credit if you were a significant author.  For example, User:Jackhynes nominated Primate for both GA and FA.  I participated heavily in both, though to a lesser extent than Jack did.  But no one disputed my GA or FA credit for that at User:Durova/Triple crown winner's circle, for example.  As long as you added 10+ in line citations (and I am sure you would do that for any article you author) you would be entitled to credit under the Triple Crown rules.  In fact, I think I am entitled to claim a GA credit for Ring-tailed Lemur, even though you did the majority of the work, since I added more than 10 in line citations to that article prior to the GA. Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Need some advice on another user's contributions
Sorry to bother you Rlendog, but you're kind of my "go to" source for proper Wikipedia conduct these days.:-) I've recently done a lot of work on the The Byrds' Sweetheart of the Rodeo page, which was in a very sorry state before I started. I’ve added inline references, corrected inaccurate information, removed biased statements and improved the grammar.

Yesterday an unknown IP user came along, making lots of unnecessary edits (just look at the history page), often changing something and then a bit later, changing it back. They also added information without any references to back it up. I've tried communicating with him but as an IP user with no talk page per se, he's either not seen my comments or chosen to ignore them. Some of what he's done is great - like adding a whole "Track-by-track personnel" section - but he's also done some questionable things like changing the spelling of people's names so that they're wrong and most worryingly, added invalid inline references (after I left comments in my Edit Summary about a lack of references) that do not support the written information he's added. Likewise, he's formatted section headings incorrectly and when I've corrected them in keeping with Wikipedia style guidelines and outlined my reasons for doing so in the Edit Summary, he's ignored this and changed them back to how he originally had them. He's also been at it on the main The Byrds article, removing important information for no given reason - replacing it only when I've left comments in the Edit Summary.

I don't know what to do about this. Obviously this is one of the inherent problems of Wikipedia and I’m not being precious about this article – after all, why shouldn’t he edit it? He’s got as much right as anyone to do so. I don't believe that this is wanton vandalism - I genuinely think that this person thinks he's helping to improve the article, which he is in some instances, but it's annoying as hell when he's ignoring my comments and replacing accurate info with inaccurate info. Maybe he's done now and won't come back but I'm doubtful about that, I think we'll see further unnecessary edits later on today.

So what should I do, if anything, about this? Just imagine if, after all the work you've put into the Mr. Tambourine Man article to improve it, an unknown IP user came along and changed lots of info so that it was incorrect, removed important details for no reason and started citing references that do not support the article. What would you do in that instance? Kohoutek1138 11:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks as if this IP user has stopped editing now. There was only one edit made yesterday and none today, so hopefully he's finished with the article now. I guess ultimately there's nothing I could've done other than what I did...try and communicate with him to reach some kind of consensus, though it’s difficult when a user just ignores your comments. Still, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this Rlendog, in case I ever encounter a situation like this again. Kohoutek1138 16:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I missed this yesterday. I went to my "Last Change" on my new messages notice, and missed this due to a subsequent message.  But I think you've handled this correctly, by fixing the obvious problems (like the misstyled headings) and leaving talk messages.  The edits don't appear to be vandalism, so you need to WP:AGF that this is a new editor adding information that he thinks is correct and formatting things as he believes is appropriate, not knowing all the guidelines.  He may not even be familiar with using the talk pages.  Hopefully, he is done, or else will add properly sourced information only in the future.  But sometimes there is no great solution to these situations.  Edit warring will just get you blocked along with him.  If other editors agree with you, it will be harder for someone to edit war with you though.  And certain edits - like removing sourced information - might be considered vandalism, which would make it easier for you to revert.  But adding unsourced information (other than some WP:BLP situations, will generally be regarded as a content disupte, and that can be mroe difficult to resolve.  Sometimes the best thing (if this situation degenerates, which I hope it will not) is to just walk away from the articles for a little while - an IP will likely move on to new targets after a few days or weeks and you'll be able to fix up the articles again.  I'll add these articles to my watch list so that if there are improper edits in the future I can help support you in fixing them. Rlendog (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rlendog! I agree, I don't want to get into an edit war with anyone. I’m more than happy to reach a consensus on a talk page if a dispute arises, and have done so a number of times in the past. I was also assuming good faith - as I said in my original message to you, I genuinely think that this person was attempting to improve the article. I also agree that this person may not have even known about the talk pages or edit summaries. That did occurr to me at the time, which kinda made it doubly frustrating. Anyway, all seems well now, so hopefully if he does contribute anything else to the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article it'll be only welcome additions and not counter-productive ones. As an aside, and since I know you're a bit of a Bob Dylan fan, I did some work on the "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" article a while back but the Dylan section of the article is a little bit lacking I feel. Maybe you'd like to take a look at it and try expanding it? Kohoutek1138 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see our friend is back! :-) Different IP address but from the edits he's making, I'm positive it's the same person. I've just removed a couple of references (both for Johnny Rogan's Sweetheart CD liner notes) that do not support the information at all - this is the third time this week I've had to remove these. But they keep coming back! It's worrying that he keeps citing these sources because I'm sitting here with them in front of me, and I can tell you that in no way do they illustrate exactly who's playing on each track. I have to say, this makes me suspicious of the other source he's using. I wish I had a copy of the "Byrds Day-By-Day" book that he's using as a reference, just to confirm that the Track-by-track personnel section he's added is legit. He's also removed dates for individual membership from the main The Byrds page, thus making the infomation incorrect. I've reinstated these dates - I just hope he doesn't remove them again. Kohoutek1138 08:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, this is just getting ridiculous now. Since I've left my last message for you, our friend has indeed been back and re-cited that erroneous reference and reversed an edit I made to the spelling of Jay Dee Maness's name (and then reverted it back again - shouldn't he be using the WP:SB for this?). According to Maness's own website it should be spelled JayDee, not Jay Dee. I don't need to tell you that I'm finding this quite frustrating now. I'm not gonna change it again though - that's bordering on edit warring. Maybe you can help? Kohoutek1138 09:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.
This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location.  Xan  dar  21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mop
Ever considered applying for a more janitorial position?-- Jac 16888 Talk 00:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have considered it, although I have been hesitant to put myself through an RfA. Is there a need for more admins?  I don't have much interest in most of the tools, although some could be useful in helping out at DYK and in vandalism fighting, especially since I deal a lot with mammal articles that get vandalized (e.g., Bob is a sloth, or Fran is even bigger than a blue whale) but often don't seem to have as many eyes on them as more popular topics.  I will admit that the tool I think would be most useful is seeing deleted edits.  About a year ago, this article was improperly speedy deleted.  The creator, who was then a new editor who I had befriended, was understandably upset and didn't know how to get the article restored.  I tried to help, and ultimately succeeded, but it would have been easier if I could have seen the deleted content.  A short time later, another of his new creations was speedy deleted, but we were able to get it restored without as much angst.  Although this worked out, if I was not able to help him get that first article restored and then the 2nd got deleted, we may have lost him - and he has since gone on to almost single-handedly create 2 FAs, 1 FL and 1 additional GA, and helped get Primate to FA as well (and I think he has some more in the pipeline).  This situation has caused me to think more seriously about RfA recently, since a year ago User:UtherSRG was very active in primate and other mammal articles, so we knew we could turn to him for assitance with these articles.  But UtherSRG has been very quiet of late, so there may be a need for more admins in that space. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A need for more admins? Well some might disagree, but I'd say yes, there are huge admin backlogs, but that doesn't mean you'd have to do anything. As the man who nominated has said more than once, if an admin uses the tools just a few times in a positive way, that's still a net gain for the community. Basically, I'd be willing to nominate you for adminship, I've had you on my watchlist for a while, I haven't seen anything bad, you're definitely a content builder, which is a plus at the minute it seems, you seem helpful and civil, and I haven't seen anything to make me think you'd wouldn't make a good admin. Unless there are any skeletons in your closet which i've missed, any thing you can think of? I can't promise you would pass, rfa can be a harsh place at times, but the offer is there if you want it-- Jac 16888 Talk 03:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I will take you up on the offer then.  I would want to hold off for a couple of weeks, since I will be traveling a lot the next two weeks and may not be able to respond to RfA questions promptly.  I don't think I have any skeletons in my Wikicloset - probably the most problematic thing is this exchange, when I mistakenly suggested someone might be canvassing at an AfD.  My only involvement at ANI that I can recall was a Wikidrama over a hatnote on Thylacoleonidae in June 2008, where a bunch of editors including me were reverting a single editor trying to make a point and ultimately turned out to be a sockpuppet of banned editor, and I probably AGFed for too long.  Some of that drama is here, here and here, although the opposing editor's talk page seems to have been blanked.  I also participated at ANI in Aug. 2008 when I was one of many who consented to topic ban User:Wilhelmina Will for DYK, on what I later realized was flimsy grounds and did my best to get the topic ban lifted (ultimately succsessfully), although a couple of other editors were pushing for her restoration as well.  That situation taught me the potential danger of getting overenthusiastic at ANI, and I have participated there sparingly since. Rlendog (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, give me a bell when you're ready-- Jac 16888 Talk 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am back from my travels. I may not be online Monday, but if you still want to nominate me I am now available for RfA. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hi Rlendog. I'm posting to let you know that your name has been mentioned on a list of potential candidates for adminship on the talk page for RfA's here. If you are interested in running, or if you would like to make any comments, feel free to join the discussion. decltype (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILM September Election Voting
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

THX 1138
Hi Rlendog! Thanks for the heads-up...nice to see that someone's been checking out my newly created user page. I thought it was about time I had one! Yes, I did know about THX 1138 and in fact, I only saw the film for the first time about a year ago, although I've known of its existence for decades. I kinda liked it for its dystopian future vibe...it reminded me of Huxley's Brave New World a bit. Having said that, I much prefer George Lucas's other pre-Star Wars film, American Graffiti...now, that really is a hugely enjoyable film. The digit 1138 has been surreptitiously used by Lucas in his movies since he made the feature length version of THX 1138. It can be found on car license plates in American Graffiti and in multiple places throughout the Star Wars saga. For example, in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope a cell block on the Death Star is designated 1138 and in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi 1138 is painted onto the side of the bounty hunter Boushh's helmet. In the prequel trilogy the Republic Clone troopers all have 1138 on the back of their helmets, and the number can also be seen on the back of certain battle droids. So now you know! Kohoutek1138 21:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice on possible Good Article nomination
Hi Rlendog! I've been thinking about nominating the Sweetheart of the Rodeo article for Good Article status. Obviously I've still got a lot of work to do before then but since you've been involved in a few GAs yourself, I wondered if you would take a look at the article and see if there are any glaring problems with it. Actually, its probably best if you look at the version of the article in my Sandbox (here), since this is where I'll be trying out a few things before going live with them. So far, all I've done is divide the "Overview" section into three smaller sections...do you think this is an improvement? I'm also planning to add a fourth section, between "Post-production" and "Legacy" dealing with the album's release and critical reception. Do you think this article has the potential to receive GA status? How hard is it to get GA status anyway? Any advice you can offer or thoughts you might have would be very welcome. Thanks! Kohoutek1138 21:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to take a look over the next couple of days. I should point out that reviewing is not my forte - when I review FLCs and FACs I always seem to miss things that others pick up.  Also, my experience to date with GAN is with natural sciences articles; when Mr. Tambourine Man gets reviewed it will be my first music article to be reviewed.  You can check for yourself whether it meets the good article criteria though.  Rlendog (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweetheart of the Rodeo edits
Hey Rlendog, I saw the edits you made but then reverted on the Sweetheart of the Rodeo page. I just wondered why you had done this? Did you think there was a problem with the article headers? I've split the article up into smaller sections for ease of navigation and slightly re-arranged some sections + added a whole new "Release and reception" section and I think it's an improvement. I think the article is much less unwieldy now but I'm curious as to whether you have a problem with the edits I've made or not? Are my edits OK?

Oh, and in other news, I've befriended our mysterious IP Byrds editor. You were right, he hadn't seen any of my attempts to contact him via the talk page but once he did, he was most apologetic and keen to help me out in a co-operative manner. I've also convinced him to create a proper user account and going forward, we'll now both be working on The Byrds articles in a new spirit of co-operation. So all’s well that ends well. I guess that you could actually remove the Sweetheart and The Byrds articles from your watch list now, since me and our IP friend are now working off of the same page. Thanks for keeping an eye on these articles and backing me up though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There were no problems with your edits. I just hit the wrong button by mistake, which undid your edits, so I self-reverted.  I'm glad the issue with the IP editor worked out.  That is one of the benefits of AGF.  It didn't seem like he was trying to disrupt the articles, just didn't know how to edit in the most constructive manner.  I've seen newbies get bitten in such situations, and I wonder how many potentially productive editors have been lost that way. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Heading out soon
Well, my flight leaves tomorrow, and as I said earlier, I'll be gone until January 1. Good luck on your RfA, and if you have a chance, please keep an eye on the lemur pages I've worked on. I've been posting updates on my progress with the Lemur article on its talk page, but my last post points to my Upcoming Revisions page for more information. If anyone wants to know the status of that update, just point them there. Again, I hope to post everything by February. Anyway, enjoy the holidays, best wishes to your family, and be safe. –Visionholder (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on those articles. Have a fantastic time and good luck! Rlendog (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films September 2009 Newsletter
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

more help?
Hey, thanks for your help with the coach-sorting. I have also begun sorting of head coaches of NFL, college football, and college basketball teams; mostly differentiating head and assistant coaches. If you can help that be great.--Levineps (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure - at least the NFL ones. I don't really follow college ball much. Rlendog (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples/archive1
Rlendog, can you help out with a source reliability issue at the above FLC? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Washington Senators coaches
I still think this needs CSD. There is one category for each active franchise. The Senators categories are subsumed by the Twins and Rangers categories. Old teams like the Expos don't list directly in Category:Major League Baseball coaches by team. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense. The counterargument is the viewpoint that the 1961 Washington Senators were really a continuation of the 1901-1960 Senators, even though all the players went to Minnesota, similar to the fiction the NFL uses for the Cleveland Browns.  In that case, there is a continuum of Seantors coaches (and players etc.) that transcends the strict franchise categorization.  The Montreal Expos are different, since there was no replacement Montreal Expos team.  And there is a category for "Washington Senators players", and I am not sure that coaches should be treated differently.  Maybe the solution is to use the category "Washington Senators" rather than "Major League Baseball coaches by team" for this category. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, you may be right in that the Washington Senators players category seems to be restricted to the 1901-1960 team, and there is a separate category for the 1961+ players. So maybe the aggregate coaches category should be deleted, and the two franchise specific coach categories just mapped to the Washington Senators category. Rlendog (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that, changing it to the Washington Senators category would work well. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)