User talk:Mudwater/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mudwater. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Dashes and a suggestion

Thanks I commented on the discussion about which you alerted me. Thanks again. I'd like to gently encourage you to consider archiving your talk page, as it's ~150 kb. If you need to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

list, anyone?

You will think I'm crazy, and indeed I am because I think a list of all sold-out GD concerts on Wikipedia is a good idea. I've asked myself this question through the years as it seemed like they all were, no exceptions. A totally insane idea-just thought I'd throw it out there anyway. Happy New Year to you Mudwater and all Deadheads around the world! Cheers, Marcia Wright (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe a list of concerts that were NOT sold out might be under 200k.Marcia Wright (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be pretty hard to figure out which Grateful Dead concerts were sold out and which weren't. But, how about a list of all Grateful Dead concerts? There were only about 2,300 of them. Hmmm.... Okay, that might be a pretty big list. Have you ever seen DeadBase? It's a book that was published annually, from the mid '80s to the mid '90s, that was a printed database of GD concerts, including song lists. (It's cited as a reference in some GD related WP articles.) Extremely useful, because it presented the data in several different ways. The information about the concerts from the first few years of the band was somewhat incomplete, but after that they had it nailed. They also have a web site, which apparently hasn't been updated in years, but which can still be used to do online searches of their database. Check it out, by going to http://www.deadbase.com/ and clicking on Search in the upper left. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Regular computer hyphen dash

Check this out - Singer-songwriter. Here's our answer. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The keyboard hyphen is appropriate for the Singer-songwriter article name, but it might not be the best choice for Royal Albert Hall London May 2-3-5-6, 2005. The reasons are explained, sort of, at the different pages linked to from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Dashes in article names. But, seeing that you just renamed the article with hyphens, I'm going to leave it that way for now. I'm also going to comment again at the project page. — Mudwater^(Talk) 23:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a quick respose! If we must change it to something else, it can be done, I have no problem. Though I hope for the time being might you be okay with this. I am. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Seldom Scene albums

Dude

You're leaving me hanging on this Brady graphic dispute in Gun laws in the United States (by state). Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've chimed in again, here. I'll try to add more if I have something new or interesting to say. But, to be honest, I've never been very interested in protracted arguments with editors who won't listen to reason, and who seem to be putting a lot of effort into pushing their own agenda. That's why I usually stick to editing articles about neutral topics, as that one has been until now. I do appreciate your excellent contributions to that discussion, so thanks again for that. — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Need your advice

Hey stranger.... I am wondering if you think JG's article is good enough to nom to GA? or should I not even bother snymore? I'm pretty much at the point regarding WP of being, as you said, "disenchanted". I'd like to work together with you on an article but I'm also thinking of closing out my account and leaving. *typical felmale whine omitted" Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age, but WP doesn't seem to have any "there there". I admit, I got TOO emotionally involved with creating J Grinnell. And Greg won't help, he hates WP (The Lost Dutchman Mine article he had a fit over). A penny for your thoughts.... MW ( the bot will sign for me)

I've replied via email. — Mudwater^(Talk) 12:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg is a footnote on Wikipedia

He's famous, thanks to his newspaper articles 27 years ago. Go figure. See Glen Stewart Godwin, footnote 1. What a shock. Marcia Wright (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty cool. He's famous, all right. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One word answer: ICK!

Just the use of the word "vector" is scary, although bit-mapped vector fonts are great, but this is like walking into the corner market you've been using for years and they have revamped the store, so everything is in a different place, and confusion reigns. I don't know, I have a hard enough time just trying to form a grammically correct(and spelled), active-voice sentence and string them into a paragraph and make all that into some kind of coherent article,AND feed breakfast to husband, and walk the dog, feed the cat and bird, and then get interrupted by a phone call. Did I mention my failing eyesight too? Something called Fuchs Syndrome-foggy eyeballs I call it. I'm close to calling it quits or taking on an easier Wikijob like finding/fixing dead links or something.

I put all I had into JGrinnell. And I don't even like the guy anymore. To say that taking an animal's life in the name of science is okay-even though it may be close to extinction, its not right.

Anyway the "Take Me Back" button is sitting right there.... PS I'm reading For The Thrill Of It by Simon Baatz and am learning a lot about Chicago in the 1920s, Clarance Darrow, Kenwood neighborhood, Hyde Park, UC, Harvard School, etc. A great book, can't put it down. Marcia Wright (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Introducing the Great "T-Bird"

As I was driving the long commute home with this new bird, a cockatiel, in a cage next to me, I put in a tape of classical music, and the bird begins singing to burst my eardrums. Our newspaper reporter friend Teya (cool name and wears a bow tie) loves classical music, writes reviews and attends concerts, so I named the new pet after him. I don't have a recording of Monk,so can't tell you what, if any, reaction the bird would have to his music.

Marcia Wright (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are great pets and very intelligent. Our cockateil, however, was never "trained", which is how I got him - he was "unsellable" and a Petsmart employee/friend had taken him home but could not keep him. This was in '96 or '98 so he is getting on in years. I never had the patience to train him, so, though he has mellowed, I would still not recommend putting a hand in his cage unless it holds a spray of millet!

What was your bird's name? (And BTW are we not supposed to discuss non-Wikipedia subjects even on talk pages? Oh and did you read the discussion on "secret" or sekrit" page game going on here on WP?)

Marcia Wright (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Secret pages and page views

Here is the link to the discussion on secret pages.

Regarding page views, funny you should mention that, as it is, and has been, a ritual for Greg. He checks Sulphur Bank, Lukens and Grinnell. I was teasing him on the high counts for Grinnell for April, hinting that it is because I'm asking people to peer review it, and the talk page stalkers see the request as well. Works great! ;P

Greg also told me I have been "doing a great community service" by writing for Wikipedia!!! Marcia Wright (talk) 03:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment of Speedy deletion of Dogfighter (2010 computer game)

Hi, I posted a reply on the talk page for the above article regarding your review of the speedy deletion. I'd encourage you to reexamine and see if my comments change your mind at all. The article might be better deleted for lack of notability rather than advertising, but that would fall into WP:Snowball. ialsoagree (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. I'd encourage you to look at the external links as well. ialsoagree (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If you examine my comments and still disagree with my assessment, please feel free to remove the CSD. Just notify me, as I will add nominate the article for deletion so consensus can be reached. ialsoagree (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Gun laws in the United States (by state)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Gun laws in the United States (by state) was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mudwater, A friend has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Crosses

I wondered about that. I saw it in another article- this is one I didn't do, so I added it to two articles -that's the extent of it in my case. It's just- I'll recall who it was, but it looked much more effective than writing that crude (deceased) under Josef Zawinul's name on the Weather Report article. I'll stop. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks! Gotcha.. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Panama Red

Thank you SO much for the gift, that was very sweet of you. Our dog is even two-stepping it. And [[1]] here is a thank you gift back at cha! Marcia Wright (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gun laws in the United States - archiving time

About this: Did you know that this time is defined as "Sections with no replies in 30 days are automatically moved."? Do you still need threads to stay on the talk page for 60 days without any acitivity? --Kslotte (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. That talk page has several sections that are closely related to each other, and that involve discussions that have been going on for several months. We need to make sure the various sections stay around for a pretty extended period so that they can be easily referred to from other sections. In fact I'm not convinced that 60 days is enough, the way the discussion's been going. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK --Kslotte (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw you increased the archive time to as high as 120 days. I strongly recommend that you use instead a Tmbox or a sticky thread to summary consensus or recurring topics. --Kslotte (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, there's a dispute on that talk page that has taken place over the last five months in several different talk page sections, and that most likely is not over yet. But I wasn't aware of the two options you are suggesting, so thanks for pointing that out. Let me think about it for a little while. Maybe I'll try composing a Tmbox with links to all the discussion sections about the contentious topic. — Mudwater^(Talk) 18:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tmbox says that Tmbox is a meta-template, used to build templates. Is it okay to use Tmbox itself to create a talk page message box? — Mudwater^(Talk) 19:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Meta-template, I haven't noted that at all. But according to my latest template search, tmbox seems to suits best the purpose. Maybe a question could be put on the template talk page. --Kslotte (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've posed the question at Template talk:Tmbox#Using Tmbox itself as a template.

I like your idea of using {{Tmbox}} to notify editors of the different discussion threads. So I've changed the auto-archiving time back, from 120 days to 60 days. Let's see how that goes. Thanks again for the suggestion. — Mudwater^(Talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Okay. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Greatful Dead chronologies

Please stop Per WP:ALBUM (and the transcluded template instructions), album chronologies only follow studio albums, except in rare cases. If you need to respond, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow Taking a look again, these chronologies are all messed up and inconsistent. Yeesh. I have only really fixed American Beauty (album), since it's on my watchlist, but someone should go through these studio albums, live albums, and compilations and make separate chronologies. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello from an AWOL Wikipedian

Just me dong a flyby hibye... My last email give you any new ideas? M

I've replied via email. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Formerly the Warlocks

On 30 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Formerly the Warlocks, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This may sound stupid, but...

I just finally uploaded a photo of Ronnie Lane of the Small Faces; been looking for that one for years! Anyway, hoping to add references to the article I found this website from Ian McLagan (also of the same band) about their history told in their own words. However, there's a note at the top that any reproduction would be considered copyright violation. It's here:

[2] Maybe I'm just sleep deprived, but it made me back off. Is it safe to use, or what? You'd think I'd know all of this after so much time! Can you please answer on my talk page? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I got kinda blown around the WP this past week. You were the first kind heart I thought of here to ask. I appreciate your time. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Scarlet Begonias and Samuel Goldwyn ?

Hey - an IP edit at the Scarlet Begonias article references a Samuel Goldwyn quote as the possible inspiration for a lyric in this song. I didn't want to flat-out remove the info, but if there is validity in the claim, it might be worth mentioning Goldwyn in the same paragraph where we mention other references like Grosvenor Square. Anyway, I have started a discussion on that articles talk page, and would value some input from you on the subject. -Addionne (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

JPMcGrath and Gun Laws in the United States (by state)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rapier (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

grateful dead discography

this discography should be improved, i.e. the tables. i don't know who added the tables, but they are looking kinda creepy. however: thank you to contribute to grateful dead related articles. i will improve the article whereever i can, and i hope you will help me with it; you seem to be an expert everything about grateful dead. cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and thanks for adding the infobox to the discography. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

hello,

The discography looks pretty well with your help, but I have a few details that I recommend to change:

I think "studio albums" and "contemporary albums" should be separated from each other
The lead of the "Videos" paragraph should be deleted
And "Live albums by recording date" should be deleted, too, because they are already standing above.

And I have a few questions:

What are "Retrospective live albums" and "Contemporary live albums"?
Where did you get this locations of dicks picks, road trips, dds and Unauthorized legal releases?

thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi GreatOrgangePumpkin. Here are the answers to your questions:

Studio albums and contemporary live albums should definitely be in the same section for the Grateful Dead, and also for a few other bands, such as the Allman Brothers Band. As it says in the article, "Unconventionally, the Grateful Dead made the release of live albums a common occurrence throughout their career. Because many were recently recorded and included previously unreleased original material, they often filled the role of traditional studio albums. An integral part of the contemporaneous evolution of the band, such live albums are included in this section." This is an established consensus of editors, and has been discussed several times, most recently at Talk:Grateful Dead discography#Studio and current live albums. Please refer to that talk page section for more information about this.
The lead of the Videos section is useful because it explains why certain video albums are not listed in that section.
The Live Albums by Recording Date section is extremely useful because it's the only way for readers to see this information. In other words, it doesn't just give the recording date for each album, but it enhances the article by providing a valuable list of the albums in recording date order. This is actually pretty commonly done in discographies, especially jazz discographies. See for example John Coltrane discography#Albums by year.
A contemporary live album is one that was released not long after it was recorded. For the Grateful Dead and a few other bands, these albums are the ones that should be listed together with the studio albums, as discussed above. A retrospective live album is one that was released some longer time after it was recorded. These should be listed separately.
The information about the recording dates and locations for the live albums comes from a number of different sources, including (1) references that can be found in the individual articles about the albums, (2) the deaddisc.com website and the DeadBase XI book referenced in the discography footnotes, (3) the LP and CD liner notes from the albums themselves, and (4) other sources.

Thanks again for your work on the discography. I appreciate that you have gotten the tables in the article up to more "modern" standards, and also added an infobox. It's good that different discography articles use similar formatting. But it's also very important to always keep in mind what it says at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Ignore all rules: "Every artist is different, and therefore no two discographies will be exactly the same. Therefore, if there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the above guidelines to most accurately or appropriately document an artist's body of work, then ignore all the rules and go with what's best for the article...." And in general, useful information should only be deleted from a discography or other Wikipedia article if there's a very compelling reason to remove it, otherwise it should remain in the article to enhance the value for readers of Wikipedia. — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

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

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks, you too! — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Question on references

I see you were fixing my formating on the AT&T case :-) -- I am confused about how to refer back to the same reference a second time in an article. Would you be able to explain? Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how you use the same reference in more than one place depends on whether or not you're using list-defined references. I like list-defined references, and if you look at the AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion article, it's using them. That's where the markup for the reference is inside the References section, instead of embedded in the text. For example, in the References section, there's a reference that looks like this:

<ref name=ScotusBlog>{{cite web |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/att-mobility-v-concepcion |title=AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion |accessdate=November 8, 2010 |work=SCOTUSblog}}</ref>

Notice that the reference has a name, "ScotusBlog", inside the first ref tag.

Then in the text of the article you just use that reference name, with a slash at the end, like this:

<ref name=ScotusBlog/>

You can use the reference name once or as many times as you want in the text. So once you're using list-defined references, it's easy to use the reference more than once.

If you're not using list-defined references -- so you have the references embedded in the text -- it's still pretty easy to use the same reference more than once, and you do it almost the same way. The first time you use the reference, you give it a name inside the first ref tag, like in the first part of the example above. Then when you use it again, you just use that reference name with a slash at the end, like in the second part of the example.

This might sound a bit confusing but once you've done one or two it makes a lot more sense.

Check out Help:Footnotes#Multiple citations of the same reference or footnote for what might be a more straightforward explanation.

I hope this helps. Have fun, and let me know if you have any more questions. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Don't get distracted by the fact that my example uses the {{cite web}} template. That's another story, and unrelated to using multiple citations of the same reference. — Mudwater^(Talk) 03:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I understand much better now. Much appreciated! Lord Roem (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Phil Lesh Plagiarism Issue

Hey, just noticed from the page history you have done some edits on the Phil Lesh page. I notice that the second paragraph in the "musical background" section is copied word-for-word from a book called Garcia: An American Life by author Blair Jackson. This book is not listed in the sources for the article, nor is it quoted obviously. I'm sure. I figure it should be removed but I haven't edited much in years, not really up on protocol, figured I'd pass it on to someone more directly associated with the article. Thanks. Tractor kings fan 23:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, we do want to avoid any plagiarism or copyright violations. I happen to have a copy of the paperback edition of Garcia: An American Life. Can you tell me what page the paragraph is copied from? On page 74 is a rather similar paragraph, that starts with the sentence, "One of the things that made Phil such an interesting player from the start is that he didn't have any preconceived notions about what the bass's role in rock music should be." It then goes on to mention some of the same influences. But the paragraph in the article is definitely not a direct copy. Perhaps you're referring to a different passage in the Jackson book. Let me know. Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 04:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No you are right, not a direct copy . . . I spoke too soon. Tractor kings fan 05:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing that whoever wrote that part of the article was inspired by that paragraph in Jackson's book. At any rate, I've added it as a reference. Thanks again. — Mudwater^(Talk) 13:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)