Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 8, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 8, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^™ and © 20:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, Best wishes for the new year! and thanks for all your excellent work copy editing & cleaning up references which enables Dylan articles to look professional. So we are on the front Page. As you say, every maniac in the universe will no doubt wish to re-write the page & mention their favourite band. Since it is Saturday, I can spend a bit of time dealing with new edits. I changed Marcus's account of LARS at Newport because I cannot believe he has heard the same recording I've heard. I've put it in a footnote, rather than delete, let me know if you have an opinion. Is there something odd about the footnotes on LARS? They used to link thru to the References, but now they don't seem to link. Perhaps I am imagining it? Anyway well done with FAs and GAs and onward and upwards. Mick gold (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed you fixed LARS ref links, good work. I agree about 1996 photo on para about 1966 world tour so I've removed it. I also removed Marcus's unsound account of Newport LARS. Fortunately Gray's Dylan Encyclopedia has an entry under 'Judas!' [shout] which goes into some detail on the Butler vs Cordwell dispute over authorship of shout. In Gray's entry, both Lee and Kershaw lean slightly towards Cordwell as the more convincing shouter, but they agree that Butler and Cordwell were both at concert and both sincerely believed their claims. Also both agree Butler is man outside the show in ETD who says "Pop groups produce better rubbish than that!" I don't have Williamson's book but I've left it in as the source of Butler's final comment, I think Williamson is reliable. btw I.M.S. is suggesting August 1963 photo for LARS. What do you think? best wishes Mick gold (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in case you haven't come to the same conclusion already, you can import material from the better-cited Surfer Rosa and Doolittle (album) articles in order to help you revamp Pixies. I've got the Fool the World biography checked out from my library, so I should be able to help out soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, sorry for leaving you on your own on this, I'll be gone for a day or too, but can help. Ceoil 06:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. Mick gold (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a privilege to co-nominate. Add my name to the list or let me know where to sign on once the nomination is posted. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Highway 61 Revisited you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Highway 61 Revisited for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, I looked up the "second wave" of Basement Tape bootlegs in Heylin's book Bootleg!. The weird thing is he doesn't mention Robertson. Heylin interviews a bootlegger who says that, after Ten of Swords and Biograph were released in 1985, he was contacted by a man. This man had been a roadie for Dylan & The Band in 1974, and during that tour he'd been given some copies of basement tapes. When the bootlegger played the tapes he realised there were about 25 new songs on the tape, plus some material from The Band & Tiny Tim sessions. They then released this stuff as a bootleg called The Basement Tapes. (I've never seen a copy of that.) So, curiously, that web page you linked has misread the Heylin book. This story is in Bootleg!, Ominibus Press, 2003, pp 149-150. best Mick gold (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to reply that when I read Heylin's account of the tri-partite release of the Basement Tape songs, I wondered whether this info should be incorporated in the The Basement Tapes article. In the end, I thought not because I don't find Heylin's account definitive. It's based on an interview with one anonymous bootlegger and I do not recall the 1985 release making any impact or being written about. I do recall coming across unknown Basement Tape songs in the 1990s on a series called The Genuine Bootleg Series, prior to the appearance of A Tree With Roots. My copy of ATWR has an insert which gives the sources of the album: 1. A Ten-Song Demo. 2. A Five-Song Demo. 3. The 'Basement' Safety. 4. A Dwarf Music Demo Tape. 5. The Robertson-Fraboni Compilation Reels. 6. The Band Roadie Reels. 7. The 1991 Cassettes. This story is quite confusing, and we are better off not going into it in TBT article, imho. btw are you in Japan? Tokyo? I've seen frightening images on TV and fervently hope you and yours are OK. best Mick gold (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Jezhotwells (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells, thanks for another great review, and so fast, too! :-) Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, John Wesley Harding (song). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - John Wesley Harding (album). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at John Wesley Harding (album) - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I may have jumped the gun somewhat there... please disregard the above message. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem! It certainly was a shock, though. ;-) Moisejp (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, I'm glad I saw this. A couple months back I red-linked the song somewhere, because I thought it was a strong candidate for its own article. The track's quality and appeal, as well as Dylan's spin on the JWH legend, place it among the album's most significant. "Speedy deletion"...not. Thanks for taking up the cause. Allreet (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "Santa-Fe" in Bob Dylan Lyrics, and it strikes me as a Seussian exercise along the lines of "I Shall Be Free No. 10" from Another Side. One dif is that "I Shall Be Free" is a set of more or less completed vignettes, whereas "Santa-Fe" appears to be a string of non sequiturs. It's apparently akin to Seinfeld, a song about nothing, though the attitude in the singing, which I haven't heard, could lend more to it. I'm curious also about the title. The lyrics book doesn't use a hyphen and neither does Heylin or Bjorner. No big deal, really, as long as it's supported, though the discrepancy might be worth brief mention. Allreet (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, Congratulations on your achievement with "Santa-Fe". The recording is not well served by the printed lyrics - "geodesic dome"? - I guess it's all in the spirit of absurdist inventiveness which characterises the song. Mick gold (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I'm happy to hear you're safe and hope all those you know (and many more) are okay as well. My thoughts and prayers. This morning, the focus of U.S. attention has been on Hawaii and California, but that'll shift once the waves subside.

I know it's not entirely appropriate at the moment, but I'll mention this anyway. Back in the 1970's, for its annual special, National Lampoon did a parody of local Sunday newspapers that was printed tabloid size but included all the typical sections, from sports to arts & leisures. It was a classic. Every possible foible was milked, but the top joke was the front page headline which referenced how papers localize stories. The headline was something like "Two local women feared dead" with a much smaller subhead: "Japan destroyed". Not funny under the current circumstances, but it's reflective of this morning's coverage, as well as that of the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, where the focus was on Western tourists.

I like tackling some of the lower profile figures and songs, too. Recently I've taken up Gil Turner and Paul Clayton as well as songs like "John Birch" and "Farewell". While sources on minor subjects that go beyond the asides in Dylan bios are often difficult to come by, it's surprising how much can be dug up from the comforts of your living room.

Contradicting a "minor" approach is the thought I expressed the other day on the project discussion page. To some degree, project colloborations should be prioritized based on a combination of readership and the state of an article. The View History (tab) > Page view statistics link shows the number of viewers per day. For articles like "Farewell", daily readership might be 10-20, while Blonde on Blonde, which needs a lot of work, averages close to 1,000. On a "quality control", "more bang for your buck" basis, then, it makes sense to focus on the most read in combination with the most in need. As for less significant topics, the record can be continue to be filled in through our individual side efforts.

Regarding "Santa-Fe", a parenthetical after an early reference to the title would cover any uncertainties, for example..."Santa-Fe" (also referred to as "Santa Fe" and "Santa Fé"). Regarding the song's meaning or lack thereof, a couple sentences addressing this would suffice. Or possibly, a short para with a general opening statement, followed by the Bauldie-Heylin quotes you mentioned and then part of a verse to illustrate. It shouldn't be too difficult to weave in something like this somewhere.

Again, I hope the disaster in Japan turns out to be less horrific than it appears. All the best... Allreet (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new material in Copyright and Lyrics looks great and is actually more than I expected. As a whole, the article covers all the bases and tells the story well. There are a few cases, a half dozen at most, where some additional editing would help. I took the liberty of reducing the wordiness in the paragraph on the recording personnel to give an example. Compare my edit with the original to see the specific changes. I also reformatted the personnel listing since dashes typically aren't used in text listings; this still needs to be done at the end of the para.

Usually, condensing is possible where you find long phrases, for example, in the first sentence on the acetate and later in Heylin's observation about Dylan's musing in Malibu. When sentences get drawn out, there's almost something that can be trimmed to improve the style without altering the substance. Simply look for short phrases or word combinations and ask if the extra words are really needed. If that doesn't work, then either some re-wording is called for or maybe two sentences would be better. I'm more than willing to do some of this, though I think you ought to take a crack at it to get a feel for this approach to editing.

The news reports of what's happening in Japan are both heart-breaking and frightening. Such destruction is unimaginable, and the thought of a nuclear catastrophe, the world's worst nightmare. We can only hope these fears aren't realized and that the outpouring of international assistance proves effective in the recovery. Allreet (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the quote. It ends the section well, plus the transitional sentence I used wasn't needed. To let you know, I had no preconceived idea of where this would go. I just wrote down the theories as I found them. The existing sentence on Jones-Pallenberg was probably the most far-fetched. If this had any weight, then Dylan's imagination was severely challenged. To that I added Echo, next most unlikely candidate, in tandem with a plausible enough possibility, spontaneity. I thought the Trager observation was even stronger, given the profound impact Brecht had on Dylan just a few years before. (Suze worked on the production, and Dylan was so taken by it that 40 years later he bothered to devote 4-5 pages to the subject.) Also, being a compulsive wordsmith, he could not have missed either the initials or the Brecht on Brecht tie at some point early on, whether any of it was intended or not. As for the quote from the Wenner interview, nice find. Classic Dylan: Nothing is revealed, which is where the record stands on most of these issues. That's fine with me. If he were such an easy target, we'd all be nothing more than stenographers, and this wouldn't be half as much fun. Allreet (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The change in source was not only fine but necessary. I sourced the quote at work and the pdf was the only online source I could find. Then thinking about it on the way home, I realized that the interview was probably in Cott and that the source I used was a poor choice. You saved me the time of making the change. Just the same, the pdf is a jewel, albeit a private one. Every Dylan interview in one doc. If all information were that accessible, we wouldn't need Wikipedia to make it freely available to all. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you. The work's my pleasure. Balancing the serious with the miscellaneous and enjoying it all. As you said, it has been quiet, though, with just two of us showing up sporadically. While more would be merrier, we'll get there as circumstances allow. About the punctuation, actually your recent cleanup sent me back to WP:MOS for a refresher, a very good thing considering I didn't understand the rules and not good because now I stare down every ." and ". I hope all is well with you and look forward to seeing "Sweet Marie" once can you work her in. Allreet (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your edit summaries on en dashes but never bothered to check the actual edits. Then last night, in condensing some of my citations, I noticed a dif in the dashes for page spans in the Notes section. Now I get it. Much better. I'll be sure to use the en's in future citations. Btw, does this also apply to year/date spans, for example, 1978–1980 versus 1978-1980 or May 6–7 versus May 6-7? On a somewhat related minor note, I've been using Magnus's Reference Generator to create citations, and he follows his own muse regarding where some of the elements are placed. For the future, I'll try to keep my citations consistent with existing ones. All it takes is a tweak or two before or after pasting. Allreet (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moisejp! Thanks for moving the Mothers from the lede. The source is Barry Miles, p. 117, which you can cite with confidence (I've already added the Miles bio to the References). Or I'll take care of it tonight tonight, about 5 hrs from now. I'll also respond to or fix the questions posed with your most recent edits. It's a drag our page numbers differ on Heylin's Revolution. On a similar note, do you have Gill's My Back Pages? I'm pretty sure it's the same as The Stories Behind the Songs, and if so, we can drop one of the editions and consolidate the cites if the page numbers match.

In the way of a roundup: I'm currently writing an introduction to the song section, about three paras. I also have some angles in mind for the Aftermath/Legacy, for example, BoB closed out Dylan's rock trilogy and was the first of four albums recorded in Nashville, the historic achievement was creating a materpiece on the heels of another masterpiece, how BoB revolutionized the possibilities of rock, and some stuff on the gap that followed and the even longer gap to his next peak, Blood...)

Regarding Critical Analysis, at the moment I'm not crazy about straight paragraph form, that is, having to use a narrative for summarizing and juxtaposing comments and would prefer a listing of top critics with the best of their quotes, but I'm not sure if this has been done elsewhere. As for the Background section, frankly I don't see the relevance in rehashing 1965's events to this extent. Gill takes this approach, but he doesn't have the advantage we do of having several articles that already recount Dylan's going electric and gathering the Hawks together. To me, the backdrop is that Dylan had just finished H61R, went into the studio not long after to cut a new hit single, was still trying to develop an on-stage sound with the Hawks, did his previous albums with studio musicians, etc. All of the above is worth discussing - or not - but I thought I'd share what's spinning around while I'm immersing myself in reading and taking notes on what folks have to say about BoB. Cheers. Allreet (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know what's up. I had a similar situation last year, plus the time off was good in some other ways. All part of the volunteer process, I guess, and one that probably alleviates burn-out among the faithful. Hope everything fares well. Looking forward to your return... Allreet (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mi, Moisejp: As I just let Mick know, the past couple months have been overwhelming. I've miss working on BoB very much, but think that what's been contributed in my absence is excellent. Like you, I hope to re-join in September. Looking forward to seeing you then. Allreet (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and good to hear from you. BoB seems to be shaping up superbly, and the idea of sound clips is yet another improvement. The scholarship, writing and other elements clearly make this a potential shoo-in for GA/FA. The summer blew by and most of my attentions were directed domestically. So I've only briefly had time to peek in, but see some light come shinin'. Now I think it's a matter of motivating myself, this being the sometimes difficult work that it is. Of course, that's the only satisfying kind. See you real soon. Allreet (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As always, good to hear from you. And good to hear BoB is nearing completion. Stalled? Hmmm, let's not let that be the case. I've only been popping in now and then, but I'll make a concerted effort to go over the article. Are there specific areas that you feel need attention as being just short of completion? The last time I reviewed it I thought things were in good shape, a few quibbles aside. But I'll make another assessment and do what I can. Thanks for keeping me in mind. Allreet (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Moisejp. I've responded here. 22:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just noticed the article you & Allreet have created. Well done! Excellent idea, which hopefully will prevent further grief in the future. Mick gold (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moisejp! I have recently nominated a new article to FAC: Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlike others I nominated before, this one is very short. This, I don't believe it will be a tiresome read. Anyway, I'd very glad if you could take some time to read it and share your thoughts about it. In case you're willing, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. Thank you for answering back, I really appreciate it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Specs (band).jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moisejp. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
Message added 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

–Drilnoth (T/C) 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the permission has now been properly confirmed. Thanks for taking the time to clear that up! –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, many thanks for your comments, very helpful and constructive. I'll try to look at the article this week. Mick gold (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I don't know that I can be of value to you (I don't own The Complete Recordings)--whatever information I have is from the Internet, so I can just say check Discogs.com, Allmusic, Christgau's site, and Darren's Magnapop fansite Kick the Dog and You Will Die. That's probably not helpful. I was really surprised at the quality of the Community Trolls article, as there is really pretty little content that they released, but you've covered it quite well--good on you. I'm looking at it now and I would be happy to give you more specific feedback. As an aside, Linda Hopper from Magnapop has told me that Matthew Sweet is just about the nicest guy ever (and she would know, because she is basically the nicest woman ever.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem First off, my experience has been that GA standards are pretty lax and your article seems pretty strong, so I'm sure that you'll have no problem passing. Regarding meeting Magnapop, I'm kind of cheating, since Ruthie is my cousin. As far as R.E.M. are concerned, that was a real dream come true and although I only met them briefly twice, they were definitely true Southern gentlemen and getting to see them with Bill Berry and getting my copy of the Hib-Tone single signed is no doubt one of the highlights of my life. I'll take a look again, but I doubt there's anything I can add. Good work! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh And I seem to recall the liner notes to Complete Recordings being reproduced on Robert Christgau's site... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources I just took a look at my R.E.M. books and I don't see anything particularly good. As far as a Community Trolls single without Matthew Sweet, I'd reckon they're just confusing that with Tanzplagen, which was another one-off Stipe project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R.E.M. books I've got them all: Fiction, Remarks Remade, It Crawled from the South, New Adventures in Hi-Fi, etc. Talk About the Passion (my personal favorite) doesn't have an index, though, so things are easy to miss there. The key for me is that Marcus Gray's It Crawled from the South has very little material and it's encyclopedic. Now, it was (re-)published in 1997, but I also don't think that there have been many Community Trolls-related revelations since then. Alas, I think this is about as good as it can get (barring some definitive Matthew Sweet documentary.) For what it's worth, I definitely recommend Talk About the Passion--it's great.

By the way, that Sweet picture is not flattering, but it was the only one that I could find with an appropriate license on Flickr. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copyedit on Fading. Basically, Man Down was sent to US radio before California King Bed, but CKB already had a digital download release. But, Man Down was also given digital released afterwards, but it was after the date of CKB, so Man Down became the sixth single, and CKB the fifth, when before it was the other way round, as digital download takes presedence over radio release. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 16:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Wikipedian British Columbians are planning a meetup at the Vancouver Public Library, Central Branch, on Sunday, October 16th, as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events. If you wish to attend, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver and add your signature to the list.

Thank you! InverseHypercube 03:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Mick's request I checked the Gill cite for the first sentence of "Obviously 5 Believers". The cite is erroneous. Trager is the sole source, correct and complete, so I removed the Gill cite. I also found that Gill 1998 and 2011 cover the same ground, though the page numbers are significantly different. To keep things simple, I replaced all 1998 refs with 2011 refs, with Mick's concurrence. Allreet (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a pleasure to add the Miles cite. It was actually easy to convert the 1998s to 2011s, but I'm still a bit mystified by the page number differences, because there's no rhyme or reason to how they vary. I'd like to have the 1998 edition just to make the comparison. If I can get one on the internet for a couple bucks, maybe I will. Regarding BoB, a few weeks ago, I reviewed it end to end and found a dozen or so small edits, primarily one- or two-word style issues and maybe one grammatical. I did the same thing today. Over the weekend, I'll compare the two, and if I made the same edits on both printouts, I'll probably make the changes in the article. That aside, I found nothing majorly bothersome that should stand in the way of GA. Of course, we'll see. Have a great weekend. Allreet (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moisejp! I tried adding the citation but because it's a ref within a ref, I can't get it to display properly. Would you mind giving it a shot? Here's the info (cut and paste from edit screen): Miles 2004, p. 117 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMiles2004 (help). Thanks...Allreet (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I just snagged it from the article on the 40 Watt. C'est la vie. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, thanks for your constructive comments on Visions. I'll try to find some time to look at it this week, and try to move forward along the lines you've suggested. Thanx again, Mick gold (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, thanks for nom of BoB at FAC. As for the Dead ref... hmmm, as you say, it is not substantial but it would turn 3 sentences into 4, so why not? Thanks for cleaning up the refs after I expanded the article. I beavered away for 2 days. I think I may have exhausted the books I have access to, and am not sure I can add more. You said this VoJ article would not need to be long to go for GAN. Do you have suggestions to expand VoJ? or do you think we have enough? Best Mick gold (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on VoJ. I'll try to look at the article this week, polish the prose, and take your comments on board. Mick gold (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on VoJ to eliminate the most obvious cases of word-for-word repetition. I used a part of Janovitz's review and connected it with Ricks's point. After all, Ricks is celebrated for his close reading of the text. Let me know what you think. Mick gold (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's OK to say "The song has been described by several critics as being a masterpiece". My justification is that Gill describes it as "one of Dylan’s finest works". Heylin says "many, myself included, consider [it] Dylan’s finest work/song". A former poet laureate of the UK, Andrew Motion, listed it as his candidate for the greatest song lyric ever written. That's 3 noted critics placing it at the highest level of creativity.

Adding pix would be fun. It's mysterious and noteworthy that no photos have surfaced of the recording of BoB. So, as you suggest, we'll have to adapt images from other eras. Dylan & Ginsberg. From The Band article, I'd nominate the one of them performing with Dylan in 1974. If you want to import the images, I'll help write captions. So far so good with our BoB. Gratifying praise for "Songs" section. Better not speak too soon, there may be a curve ball lurking round the bend. Actually, we have to put a bit of work into reviewing entire article per Efe FAC comments. Regards Mick gold (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree VoJ is nearly there. You asked about the "masterpiece" issue. This what I wrote in above para:

I think it's OK to say "The song has been described by several critics as being a masterpiece." My justification would be that Gill describes it as "one of Dylan’s finest works". Heylin says "many, myself included, consider [it] Dylan’s finest work/song". A former poet laureate of the UK, Andrew Motion, listed it as his candidate for the greatest song lyric ever written. That's 3 noted critics placing it at the highest level of Dylan's creativity. Let me know if you're dissatisfied with that!

Hmmm back in Canada. Hope that chimes with your wishes. Did you enjoy Japan? It's such a strange, interesting, very graphic culture. I've never been there, and am concluding I'll never get there unless work sends me there, which looks most unlikely now. All best, let me know if there's any further work you think advisable to ready VoJ for GAN. Mick gold (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember Seems Like A Freeze Out was the title of a bootleg. I still have a copy of it. I found an article by Marcus in which he claims that "seems like a freeze-out" were words spoken by Dylan to introduce the song in concert in 1966. I've added some of Marcus's points to the article, and tried to tidy up copy. Mick gold (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back in Canada? I hope that's a good thing for you. I must say, my wife and I had our best vacation ever in Nova Scotia this past July. More than anything, we enjoyed the people we met and in fact, went out of our way to talk to everyone we could. The second best thing was having a GPS. We could turn off on any road without a worry in the world and that way discover things tourists rarely get to see. Anyway, welcome back to the Western Hemisphere. Talk with you soon...Allreet (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Blonde on Blonde you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blonde on Blonde for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Moisejp! Another successful collaboration. My personal opinion is hat BoB is already as good, as well written, as some album articles which are already FA. Please give us your opinion on BoB Talkpage. Thanks again. Mick gold (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notes. I promise I will get to it, I'm just finding myself so busy at the moment (I lost a FAC because I couldn't respond just yesterday). If you feel I'm taking too long and you need to fail it, then so be it- you're the reviewer. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Visions of Johanna you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Visions of Johanna for things which need to be addressed. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 14:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Moisejp, the hits just keep on coming. Mick gold (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your efforts! I'll be sending the four articles (Connie Talbot, Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album), Connie Talbot's Christmas Album and Connie Talbot's Holiday Magic) to featured topic candidates soon- it'll be my first attempt at something there. J Milburn (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Moisejp for helping to promote Visions of Johanna to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 05:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I'm really happy about awarding barnstars to editors who deserve them. Please spread the love. --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, thanks for sharing your Barnstar with me, much appreciated. Fingers crossed on BoB front. I enjoy collaborating with you, and I'll think about other songs we can turn into GAs. I am a bit busy right now. I was going to suggest "It's Alright Ma", then I looked at the article and saw that Rlendog (& Kohoutek?) had already transformed it into a GA. I'll think further. Do you have any suggestions? Mick gold (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, Sorry for the delays. I got busy suddenly. In fact, I think I would be happy if you chose a song to work up to GA level. I would happily work with you, but then I wouldn't feel guilty if I did not do much. After working VoJ up to GA, and BoB up to an attempted FA, I thought I would ease off a bit on WP for a couple of months for personal and work reasons. I still enjoy contributing & collaborating with you and the others. I am keen on I'm Not There as a movie, but I agree that it's a complex beast to improve. Ditto for the song "I'm Not There". Please choose a song and I hope to find time in December to make improvements alongside you. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see if more work is needed on Cliff Williams? igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, I would be interested in your opinion on this question. Mick gold (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate what you are saying, but some of what you said simply is not the case. I don't go around thinking that Wikipedia owes me GAs and FAs (I haven't even got an FA), I work really hard on Rihanna articles and work hard to maintain them. I don't do it for number of GAs, if I did then all Rihanna articles would GA by now. I just like to make sure that her articles are the best they can be. And with me, I react as soon as I read something and don't take time to think about it and say how I feel right away, that's not your fault. And I know you probably don't care, but I have had a real bad couple of days, and it just took me by surprise when I saw what you had written. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo for this Moise. Calvin you should really take a note of what he said and change your attitude in FACs. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Community Trolls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Community Trolls for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on Community Trolls. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contributions seven GAs – Highway 61 Revisited , Blonde on Blonde, Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song), Visions of Johanna , Community Trolls, Stanley Industrial Alliance Stage and, most recently, Make Love (song) – I hereby award you the GA Medal. Keep up the good work --Sp33dyphil © • © 06:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. His review didn't seem terrible, since it was not a blanket pass at least. Having said that, I see a few major issues myself on a look through the article, and a GAR might be best. As for the reviewer himself, you might want to poke one of the coordinators of the GA drive going on now and have his reviews vetted. Usually I'm good to go on that but I'm working on a very tight schedule as is. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moise, how are you doing? I have addressed your concerns at the "Oh Father" GA page. Will you please take a look in your time? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed your review. It's been a long time since I found such a wonderful reviewer as you. I would definitely love working with you sometime. I do have "Like a Prayer" (you must have heard the song) to take to FAC. Would love if you comment there. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moise, "Like a Prayer" is going through its second Peer review and after that I might again wait some time and then submit for FAC. You can read it (I'm sure you will find it interesting). It is indeed big, prosewise also because of the whole controversy with the music video. You really have an eye for prose issues that I'm kinda spellbound. Would appreciate any help greatly. Thanks for taking the time to review my articles and I hope you like them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will let it play by itself frankly. FACs are tricky and high chance that it won't pass at first attempt. I only have two FAs to my credit, lol. So I'm willing to wait patiently and soak in all the responses regarding the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Moise, its always good speaking with you. Yes, I do have some good number of GAs I'll admit. It all stemmed from my love for Madonna's music and the horrible condition of her articles here. I once heard Madonna saying in an interview that she hated what is written about her and her songs in Wikipedia. Now since I love this encyclopedia I decided to take the onus to develop her articles and hon them to precision. I still have miles to go before I sleep though. About "Like a Prayer", yes do take your time and see with fresh eyes. I'm sure you will enjoy reading it, and will reminisce stuff from that tumultuous period, although I don't know whether you remember it? Have a nice time and "Dear Jessie" queries have been addressed. Thanks again for reviewing my nominations. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Moisejp. I'd appreciate if you'd take a look at a recent addition to Dylan's "Don't Think Twice, It's Alright". The issue is a new section that includes two paragraphs and a photo of the artist of a cover version that's scheduled for release in January. I removed the material as unnotable, though both the artist and planned compilation certainly are. It's just that most of the added material is about the cover artist and what a big influence Dylan has been on her. My opinion is that this information is trivial and is being given undue weight; in effect, it lends nothing to an understanding of the article's subject, the original song. BTW, I removed the material based on notability, and the author, an avid fan of the cover artist, reinstatated it. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I'm asking other editors to chime in. Hope all is well. Thanks. Allreet (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, I spotchecked Blonde on Blonde, and the FAC requires attention regarding the spotcheck. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware the FAC review of BoB was underway until yesterday when I saw the request for input from Fifelfoo. I'll gladly help where I can, though I'm not sure exactly where to dive in at this point. Let me know if there's any digging or whatever that needs to be done. I noticed Fifelfoo's point about Trager and Marqusee on BoB closing out the trilogy. The two sentences in question are:

"Several critics have described Blonde on Blonde as a satisfying conclusion to the mid-1960s trilogy of albums that Dylan had initiated with Bringing It All Back Home and Highway 61 Revisited. Oliver Trager and Mike Marqusee have described this trilogy as perhaps Dylan's greatest achievement."[Marqusee 139][Trager, 51-52].

I checked Trager, and what he says is "The two-disc release...closed Dylan's mid-1960s rock 'n roll trilogy", followed a few paragraphs later with "It's the jewel in the crown of Dylan's early electric rock 'n roll period". I couldn't find anything similar in Marqusee,though I only did a quick browse through using the index, and further believe the page number cited is incorrect, unless there's an edition conflict (Fifelfoo says 138 but that's probably a typo on his part). Shelton comes closer with "Blonde is a particularly high achievement, a hallmark collection that completes his first major rock cycle, which began with Back Home (No Direction, p. 320, 1986 edition). However, I have seen the actual quote, but wasn't able to find it tonight. To this, I'll add that it's not likely two critics said exactly the same thing: "perhaps Dylan's greatest achievement". I'd suggest rewriting these two sentences around Trager and Shelton (if his quote isn't used elsewhere), and if the original quote can be found, weaving that in, too. The easier alternative would be to simply cut the material, but I think the triology and high achievement points are important. Allreet (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moisejp. You have new messages at Talk:Tute/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(on an unrelated note to Tute, great work on the Bob Dylan related articles!)--GDuwenTell me! 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC) No problem, take your time. Sometimes you get days like those, when you're free again we keep working.--GDuwenTell me! 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moisejp. You have new messages at Talk:Tute/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GDuwenTell me! 17:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moisejp. You have new messages at Talk:Tute/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GDuwenTell me! 16:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moisejp. You have new messages at Talk:Tute/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--GDuwenTell me! 17:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no worries. Happy New Year!--GDuwenTell me! 16:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a Tute article another glance? I hope the scoring section is more intelligible now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Jivesh here. How are you? Thanks for everything you have done so far at the FAC. Hey, do you know how to reduce the quality of am music sample? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine, thank you. Well, to be frank, not that fine. I am ab it frustrated but i think it is pretty normal. :) Actually, I do not even know how to upload a music file. So I was wondering if you could do it for me. See the media review of "Single Ladies" towards the end. An editors wants the music sample quality to be downgraded to 64 kbs. Can you please do it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Really, thanks a lot for doing so much for me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, it's even higher. The table indicates 157 kbs while the summary just under the file at the top of the page says 70 Kbs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. I asked many people to do that and you are the only one that at least tried. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Th quality has largely deteriorated. There are many interference in the sample. Listen to it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be sorry. I recognize and appreciate your efforts,. Do not get me wrong but I have never seen a music file smaller than 152Kb on Wikipedia. That's the smallest I have ever seen. And now they even want much smaller than that. These are the types of things that frustrate me. If I say that on the FAC, they will only put a big WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for me to see. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moise. How are you doing? Just wanted to check by if you are getting time to look into "Like a Prayer". I know you are engaged with the Blonde on Blonde FAC, hence I can't pressurize at all. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course take your time. Christmas sounds nice. Jot down all your points in the PR open for it. You can find the link from the talk page of the article. Thanks again. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time Moise, I'm willing to wait for it. And a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in advance. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★* Merry Christmas And Happy New Year 2012 *★*★*★*★*★*★*★*★
		I Wish You And Your Family A Merry Christmas And A Happy New Year 2012. May The New Year Bring Much Happiness, Prosperity, Peace, And Success In Your Life. I Am Very Happy To be Part of Wikipedia And To Have Great Friends Like You. Cheers. - From A Big Fan of ----> Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to that as well. You are welcome and thanks for lovely message. :) You are very nice. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I express you my heartfelt thanks. ""Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" has passed. I am very happy. Your feedback and kind words helped me considerably. Thanks again. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Lol. It feels so good when we make it to our fist FA. :)) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend. Can you please c/e this section for me before I nominate it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your wonderful help with the PR of "Like a Prayer" I give you these specially baked brownies on this wonderful Christmas day. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp, lots of Christmas cheer to you and greetings for the new year and hopefully further Bob collaborations. Best Mick gold (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the audio file text & rationale, feel free to tweak again if you see the need. Last time I looked we had 8 Support votes, and no Oppose, so I think we are getting there. Mick gold (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! A good way to start the year. Mick gold (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the star, Moisejp, much appreciated and all best wishes for New Year. If you ever visit UK it would be great to meet up. I'm afraid I haven't been to Canada yet but I get to US quite often. Mick gold (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Everything is going fine. Thanks for asking. :)) Yes, "Halo" is the next on my list. Yes, I wanted you to look at one section only. I don't want to bother you too much. Lol. Well, honestly I prefer you take a look at it soonest you can because I think I will not be very active after January. I have finished high school and I will start working till I get admission in a university. But listen, I will totally understand if you have to look at the other GAs/FAs first. :D Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. And thanks. I am happy to have come across someone like you on Wikipedia. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my friend. Thanks. Hmm, I prefer you look at "Halo" first. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I wanted to tell you that this is not good. Cowell was upset because Knowles claimed the song for her album, not because she released it as a single. :D Do you listen to Beyonce? I guess no, right? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]