User talk:Mudwater/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

7 Walkers (album)

Kudos for this article! It answered my questions and even more. Well done. I hear there is a tour in the near future... -A friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.41.166 (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject United States

I have proposed a change to the mission statement of WikiProject United States at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Mission statement for WikiProject United States and would welcome your views. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Notes and other things

Hey! Hi -There are a bunch of things I want to learn here in Wikipedia. Only you, and maybe 3 others could teach me (terribly embarrassing to admit I'm so ignorant with computers, etc.) and so I've decided to send a couple notes and the others for help. Is it OK to email you, to save space on our talk pages? Mine is activated too. This drives me crazy! One burning question has to do with many Grateful Dead-related articles, so I am here. Nearly all the biography articles about musicians eventually have a Discography section, followed by References, and then External links. Some of them have a "see also" section which is essentially trivia, and it is simple enough to see if it's warranted or not. However, what I don't understand is a "Notes" section. What purpose, exactly does it serve, and how do you put info into the text properly to acheive whatever result the editor is trying to accomplish? It's really perplexing. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Leahtwosaints. I'll be happy to try to answer your questions. Instead of using email, let's talk about it here, in this section of my talk page.

I think one of the things you're asking about is the sections that are near the end of many articles. Basically, the references for an article should be listed in these sections. There could be a "Notes" section, a "References" section, or both, or there could be a "Notes and references" section. Any of those section names, and a few others too, are considered okay, as is explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Notes and References. To me what makes the most sense is to put references that are footnotes in a "Notes" section, and references that are not footnotes in a "References" section, but that's personal preference. The one section that's different is "External links". That should link to one, or just a few, websites that are directly related to the topic, and should not normally contain the article's references, as is explained at Wikipedia:External links#References and citation. For an example of an article that's set up this way, see Phil Lesh.

Another thing I think you're asking about is how to format footnotes. Like a lot of things, that seems a little strange at first, but it's pretty easy to get the hang of it once you've done it a few times. I suggest that you read Help:Footnotes for a good explanation of how to do it, especially the first section, which is called "Inserting references or footnotes". For a lot more details, check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes). That has some good explanations too, especially the first few sections, although later in the page it gets into a lot of details that you normally never have to worry about.

Let me know how that goes. Being able to format footnotes is a big plus, and like I said it's pretty easy once you've done it a few times. I suggest that you try doing a few on your user page, or on a sub-page of your user page, for practice. If you want more help just let me know. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mudwater

My apologies when I come trampling through your pet projects-- further from my mind to annoy you, seriously. However, I keep seeing (esp. in jazz related articles) people interchanging sections listed as "References", "Notes", "Footnotes" "External links", and I've even seen (whilst editing) a "Reflist 2". Frankly, I'm baffled. I've pretty much stuck to the editing of musicians and generally, the articles are biographical and I stick to the typical lead per WP:MOS (which I admit I never really read too deeply). Usually, at the end of an article, there's the discography and the references section, followed by External links and often the latter is jam-packed with link farms that are longer than the article themselves. Can you explain to me how this works, with the Notes and all? OH, and feel free to revert my edits when they are done improperly. Sorry about messing up articles that I only want to help! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Yes, I think a lot of editors are a bit confused about Notes, References, and External links sections. Take a look at what I wrote at User talk:Mudwater#Notes and other things, and at Talk:Skip Battin#Place references here, for some helpful info. On some articles, most or all of the External links section should really be in the References section. But it's important not to remove reliable references from articles. Feel free to reply here if you want to talk about this some more. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at it. Partly, one reason why I'm not a first class editor has some to do with ADD (or laziness, take your pick) which explains my difficulty with punctuation as well.. anyway, like I said, never feel bad about reverting my work, too. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rhino50DS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rhino50DS.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Need your expert opinion

M-- Please take a look at Scott Gorham's article. Obviously it is lacking inline citations. But this is the kind of thing that's frustrating b/c of my earlier discussion with you about "Reference", "Notes", "External links" and occasionally more! It's mind-boggling! Since it's a Stub, I was hoping you could clean it up and in the process, telling me what you have done so I can do it right in the future!

Second, last but not least, There's an Rfa for User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish, one of the handful of editors who, like you, have consistently been a help and inspiration. I hope you'll take a look: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Catfish Jim and the soapdish Please, vote with your heart. Thanks as always. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the Scott Gorham article, that's just a classic case of an article that doesn't have enough references. But it looks like someone has added more references since you posted about it here on my talk page. I might add a few more myself if I get around to it. In general, I'd say don't get too hung up about the technical details of naming the sections, or the best way to format references. The most important things are to expand and improve the text of existing articles, and to add reliable references that you find, either on the internet or offline. I happen to be interested in a lot of the technical details myself, as I've explained a bit here on my talk page, but if you find it confusing, don't worry about it. The content is the most important thing, someone can always come along later and fix the formatting. "P.S." Looks like your buddy made admin, congratulations to him (or her). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. OK, then. The editor who just brought Thin Lizzy to GA status becomes more motivated with the Thin Lizzy related articles (like Scott Gorham) when I bring in new photos that are good. If there isn't enough text to place the article, it doesn't work, and he's good that way.. like the photo for Bo Diddley and Eric Bell.. so that must be him. Oh, and as for User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish's Rfa, it is good! I was really surprised to hear he jumped into the ring of fire without my knowing he planned to do it.. he said he didn't want to look like he might be fishing for votes, which just goes to show what a decent guy he is.. not to mention all those positive votes, and I think, 2 votes not for his Adminship, which is a really decent outcome! I thought you knew him already. You may benefit from doing so. He's been so helpful to me over the last year or so, and is a good editor as well as good at sniffing out vandalism, which is why he finally asked for the mop-- more tools in which to deal with those problems. I'm glad for him! I'll only vote in an Rfa if I really know the individual, so it's just been three times altogether. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Article about "Gun laws in the United States (by state)"

It doesn't look like we're getting much feedback on splitting the "Gun laws in the United States (by state)" article. I posted notices on WikiProject Law and WikiProject United States, to no avail.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, not much feedback so far. Seven editors have commented, including you and me. And one of the seven also posted about it on WikiProject Firearms. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Buddy Cage

Hi. :) I appreciate all your work in that article and particularly in your diplomatic resolution to the nationality question. Mr. Cage would like us to set the record straight, and he's provided us with a published source so that we can. I've added that his nationality is American. (It's kind an irritable blog entry, but it contains some other biographical information that you might like to incorporate: [1].) I just wanted to ask you, if you happen to be continuing to maintain the article as you so ably have in the past, to kind of keep an eye out for the return of Canadianism, if it should show up. Mr. Cage vigorously contests its accuracy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is great. And I love Mr. Cage's explanation of his situation, and his views on the Wikipedia process from the perspective of being the subject of an article. Thanks very much for your help with this! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

24.2

Hey, I noticed this yesterday and was wondering if the 24.2ems should be made part of the actual template. There was a discussion on this a short while ago on the template's talk page, but I didn't think it was possible. Didn't occur to me to try decimals. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I missed that discussion, but I definitely think it would be very good if the default width of the template was 24.2, so that it would be (I think) the same width as the infobox. (And as an additional point, I would also favor making "state=plain" the default.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the states thing, but here's the discussion: Template_talk:Album_ratings#Width. It's not very old at all. I would support the 24.2. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if the widths of the infobox and the album ratings template would vary by browser and/or by skin, but I didn't try to figure that out. It sounds like they do. But I think that using 24.2em would make them the same width for most readers, so I would still favor that. As for "state", that's explained on the Template:Album ratings page. In my opinion "state=plain" would be the best default, because it displays the ratings without the options to hide or show them. In most cases having the option is an unnecessary complication, in my view. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I remember states now. Yeah, not sure why one would collapse the template at all. Kind of a silly option. Well, when I messed around with ems, they varied between skins (I tried Vector, and I always use Modern, otherwise), and I'm using Safari for a browser, and your 24.2 thing looked fine on Safari/skin=Modern, so I assume you've figured out the secret width needed. Not sure how well it would work, but you could always put an infobox and the album ratings template on an otherwise-empty sandbox, then throw that URL into browsershots.org and see if the widths vary from browser to browser. They'd all be in Vector (default) skin, I think. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

I'm guessing you're watching the page, but just FYI I opened a discussion there with my reasoning. Int21h (talk) 10:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

File:KimberProAegisII.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:KimberProAegisII.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Spartan310.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spartan310.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:BerettaAL391Urika.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BerettaAL391Urika.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:StoegerCondorSupreme.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StoegerCondorSupreme.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:EclipseTarget.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EclipseTarget.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:RugerM77MarkII.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RugerM77MarkII.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

File:BrowningCitori525.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BrowningCitori525.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BobDylanBobDylan.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BobDylanBobDylan.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 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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Spartan100.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spartan100.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:StoegerCoachPromo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:StoegerCoachPromo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:RugerGoldLabelShotgun.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RugerGoldLabelShotgun.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File:BerettaSilverPigeonS.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BerettaSilverPigeonS.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. B (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Road Trips Volume 4 Number 4

I received my Grateful Dead Road Trips Volume 4 Number 4 CD's in the mail today. What grate (sic) shows they were, and what memories they bring back for this faithful Philadelphia DH!

A relative WP amateur, I am eager to increase my knowledge about editing. Accordingly, I thought creating the page for this album would be a fun exercise, and I admittedly couldn't resist the temptation. A longtime admirer of your WP efforts, I thought I couldn't go wrong following the excellent format of your previous similar contributions. I'd appreciate any feedback you might have regarding my work on this (and other Dead-related) contributions I have made this far. Many thanks.

—PAIRdoc ^(Talk) 22:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, the article looks grate, uh, I mean great! I'll feel free to make any minor (or even not so minor) adjustments, but in general everything looks to be "just exactly perfect", as Bobby might say. Thank you very much for doing this. I'd encourage you to keep up the good work. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the upbeat feedback. Clearly, a propensity for details is paramount in this arena, and thus the overall appeal to me. I will continue to make edits to various articles (e.g., I've done some work on a few BLP's and extensive research on Festival Express, et. al.) as my schedule permits. I look forward to Road Trips Volume 4 Number 5, to be released in November, 2011. However, considering I wasn't one of the original fortunate 7200 who laid out the requisite $450, I will leave the 73 CD Europe '72: The Complete Recordings work to you and others! I definitely don't relish that monumental setlist enumeration chore. As an aside, though, I was wondering about the idea of a template to make to additional of future albums somewhat more streamlined. Might be a worthwhile mini-project to construct in a sandbox? Cheers! — PAIRdoc ^{•talk to me•} 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The track listing for Europe '72: The Complete Recordings is indeed a daunting prospect. We'll have to wait and see what happens with that. I haven't ordered a copy either, by the way. Anyway, thanks again for your recent (and future) work on Grateful Dead album, and related, articles. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:27 Club#Unsourced entries need to be removed. Please feel free to participate and provide any insight or opinion that you feel relates to the unsourced entries in the list. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for letting me know. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of your change to If I Could Only Remember My Name

Hi, Mudwater,

I reverted your change since it was only necessary because of the vandalism in the change just before yours, which I also reverted.

Thanks -- J. Wong (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RE Infobox guidelines

Hey Mudwater,

You may recall we discussed the infobox guidelines for bands with regards to Grateful Dead a while back. I was just wondering if I could ask for your view on whether I've misinterpreted the guidelines. Another user seems to think I've got them all wrong, and I'd just like a second opinion on the matter. The relevent discussion topic on my page is User_talk:Burbridge92#Opeth.

Kind regards,

Burbridge92 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Mudwater/Archive 5! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Lists of Russians

Per your comments here, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Help_removing_a_template. There is an editor who seems to believe we need this template at the bottom of every article about every Russian. Thank you. 198.175.175.57 (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Wembley-4-7-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Wembley-4-7-72.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 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) 03:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Wembley-4-8-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Wembley-4-8-72.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 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) 03:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Newcastle-4-11-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Newcastle-4-11-72.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 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) 03:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Copenhagen-4-14-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Copenhagen-4-14-72.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 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) 03:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Bremen-4-21-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Bremen-4-21-72.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 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) 04:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Dusseldorf-4-24-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Dusseldorf-4-24-72.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 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) 04:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Frankfurt-4-26-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Frankfurt-4-26-72.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 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) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Hamburg-4-29-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Hamburg-4-29-72.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 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) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Paris-5-3-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Paris-5-3-72.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 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) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Europe-72-Paris-5-4-72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Europe-72-Paris-5-4-72.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 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) 04:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Seva

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Seva. Could you send that link again, please? Thanks-MW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.40.148 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Grateful Dead release labels

Greetings, Mudwater. Here's hoping you are doing well. I note that you properly changed the "Label" infobox field for the articles Europe '72: The Complete Recordings and Europe '72 Volume 2 (as well as the corresponding entries in Grateful Dead discography) from "Grateful Dead" to "Rhino". In reviewing the "Road Trips" series, I see that these albums appear to be on the Rhino label as well, although they were produced by Grateful Dead Productions. Do you agree that the relevant articles on this series should therefore be changed as well? If so, I'm happy to assist in making these minor changes. Thanks.
P.S. I saw Furthur in Atlantic City on Saturday, which was amazing. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the physical CDs -- and at the cardboard cases -- it appears that the last four Road Trips -- Volume 4 Number 2 through Volume 4 Number 5 -- are on Rhino records, and all the previous ones are on Grateful Dead records. Assuming that you agree, I would say that both the articles and the discography should be updated to reflect this. Good catch. In general, I'm really unclear on why some titles are on Rhino and some not. Who knows, maybe they'll all be on Rhino going forward. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I only have a subset of the Road Trips releases, including a few from Volume 1 and Volume 2, as well as Volume 4 Number 2 through Volume 4 Number 5. I agree that only the last four appear to explicitly have the Rhino logo on them, as well as the dead.net logo, whereas the older ones only have the dead.net logo. All of them, however, are copyrighted by Grateful Dead Productions. While I agree that V4N2 through V4N5 are clearly on the Rhino label, I am not entirely sure that the ones prior to these are on the Grateful Dead label. They theoretically could actually be on the Rhino label as well, without explicitly so indicating with a Rhino logo, particularly since the dead.net website is Rhino's site, and not the Grateful Dead Productions'. I realize that amounts to splitting hairs, but might be worthwhile exploring given the fact that meticulous attention to detail is so inherent in projects such as these. Perhaps you have additional info that can shed light on this. Thanks. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 03:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have additional info. And indeed, philosophically speaking, how do we truly know what record label an album is on? I'm half kidding and half serious. I've been taking a very evidence based approach, and considering albums to be on the Rhino label if and only if they have the Rhino logo on them. I think it's a good way to make the determination, but, as usual, I'm open to further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)