User talk:78.26/archive2011

radio transcription records

Thank you for correcting me on the 16 inch radio transcription records. I have many of them but can't play them so I forgot they were 33 and only 15 minutes per side. You probably should have corrected my errors rather than erase the whole paragraph. I restored it under my main login DigbyDalton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.193.38 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the updates! I had hoped to get correctly sourced information, rather than just anectodal evidence from my own collection. This still needs to be sourced, but the correct information is now there. 78.26 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Leonard MacClain

You're right, it should be the page number on the newspaper. I just didn't see it. BTW, I'm adding URLs to many of the books and journals you've cited. It looks like you did a lot of library research; you can find many books and newspapers on Google. Best, Yoninah (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm finished researching on Google to find more information. It was fun! Please note that only 3 Wikipedia articles link to this page, so it's going to be tagged as an orphan if you don't add this page to other pages. Best, Yoninah (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leonard MacClain

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello

You've got to get Twinkle, it's awesome for anti-vandalism work. Also, your username really confused me when I fist saw it. I was trying to figure out what sort of IP address that was. BurtAlert (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool name, I like it. Well you should definitely try out Firefox so that you can use Twinkle, it makes things so much easier! BurtAlert (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah, good idea. I'm getting off my virtual behind and downloading it now. Again, thanks. 78.26 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the Hypocrisy?

My clearly useful edit was reverted because 'articles should always be written from a neutral point of view'. And yet, on your user page, it clearly states 'there is no such thing as unbiased editing, despite best intentions'. I demand an explanation!! 86.148.53.165 (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No hypocrisy there at all. You edit stated "it was totally awesome". Now, if you had been quoting a notable film critic, the edit would have been entirely appropriate, as long as you sourced your edit. However, your edit is blatantly your own opinion. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The goal is neutrality, but we are all human. That's why I list my interests and personal beliefs on my user page, to give other editors a frame of reference to my own edits, because indeed I hope they are able to guide me back to the "straight and narrow" should I violate this core Wiki policy. I hope you review the policy and make many positive contributions to Wikipedia going forward. The fact you wrote back at least shows some interest, which is a lot more than I can say for most IP editors who get the same warning when I'm on vandalism patrol. All the best! 78.26 (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the polite response :) 86.148.53.165 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Elmo Tanner

Hi 78.26, I have moved your article on Elmo Tanner 78.26/sandbox/tanner to User:78.26/Elmo Tanner, since I think your intention was to work on a draft in your user space. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. You are quire correct, I'm writing an Elmo Tanner article, and am trying out some wikicode I'm not terribly familiar with. Although it doesn't matter to me where I test the page out, I'm intellectually curious as to why you moved the page. Both the old location and the new are in my user space. Did I miss some point of etiquette regarding subdirectories? Does more than one level harm the server kitties? Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The former location was in the main namespace, as it was not prefixed with "User:" - I hope this clarifies! Marasmusine (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I'd meant to put it in User:78.26/sandbox/tanner, but since it didn't squak I hadn't noticed my error. Sorry 'bout that, and thanks for correcting! Now I'm curious again: Is there any legitimate usage of subdirectories in the main namespace? I can't think of any, which is why I ask. 78.26 (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter since subpages are disabled in mainspace (WP:NC-SLASH)! Marasmusine (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

user talk pages

Hi. I noticed that there was a delete/restore battle at this talk page: User talk:116.212.202.98. The community as indicated that if a user removes comments from his/her talk page, the comments are considered read and should not be restored. In this situation, restoring the warnings only served to increase the IP's belligerent behavior. I did issue him a level 4 warning and reverted his last change only because he seriously altered the meaning of your last warning. If he blanks his talk page again, it should not be reverted. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the policy to me. It seemed that escalating warnings were necessary, but I'll need to review my procedures. Does ClueBot review history when escalating warnings? All the best! 78.26 (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how sophisticated ClueBot is, but there are usually humans around to catch vandalism and escalate warnings just as quickly. Once a user has a level 4 or a 4im, and does more vandalism, they can immediately be reported to AIV. Taroaldo (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Elmo Tanner-part 2

I think I have more refs kicking around in one of my booksmarks folders. Had found them while doing something else and saved them "in case", which looks like now, :-) We hope (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I sure do have more! Will add what's there for you that would be new to the article. Had looked into all those who were with Ted Weems when doing Perry Como and kept the links in case of articles on those who didn't have any at the time. We hope (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Horrible-a.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Horrible-a.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

{{helpme}} This is not my area of expertise. I thought I did give a rationale on the page, why the file is in use, and why it should be allowed, beyond boilerplate language. I'm probably missing something simple, but I need assistance because I think the image is very important to the article Tony Burrello Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to edit the page and insert a "fair use rationale" - you could copy the one below, and fill in all the fields...

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = 
| Source            = 
| Article           = 
| Portion           = 
| Low_resolution    = 
| Purpose           = 
| Replaceability    = 
| other_information = 
}}

For help with it, see Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Really stupid question. Does this template need to be placed on the file talk page, or on the article the picture is used on? Truly appreciate the help. 78.26 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not a stupid question; it's fine. It goes on the file page - and, to try to make it easy, I've just added it and filled in what I could (based on the info you gave) - but some parts still need completing. You need to say where it comes from - not just that you scanned it, but actually where it is from - ie the record, or whatever - and also, give the 'purpose' - why it is needed for the specific article.

So - the page where this goes is File:Horrible-a.jpg - and you can edit it with this link, and you'll see what I've already filled in.

Once you have filled it in, you could also remove the line at the top - the 'deletion request' - which is this line;

{{di-no fair use rationale|date=25 April 2011}}

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  14:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey 78.26, and thanks Chzz for the help so far. I'm not really convinced that the image is adding anything to the article on which it is used- what's it showing that needs to be shown? Sure, the subject matter is important, and so worth talking about, but why do we need the image? Would the article be worse off without it? These are questions you need to ask yourself when dealing with non-free content- just because the subject of a non-free image is relevant to the article, does not mean that a non-free image is required. If, however, the image is "free", we can use it as we wish. I'm looking at the image now, and thinking we may be able to treat it as public domain- when was this record published? J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the image to the article because it gives historical context to the product that was released. I'll allow that the image may not be of great interest to every reader, but label pictures/scans are of importance to record-nerds and discographers, particularly for 78rpm releases. This recording was released in May, 1953. The copyright status of musical recordings is beyond murky in the United States for recordings older than 1972. The image, as opposed to the recording, in current discussion is likely public domain as per the "other" comment, but I'm no lawyer, and "album cover" was the closest thing I could find on Wikipedia regarding lisencing. 78.26 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'd probably be ok claiming it as public domain as per {{PD-text}} anyway, regardless of the publication date. J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure {{PD-text}} applies (as much as I'd love it to), as the words "Horrible Records" appear in non-typeface, and are not a geometrical shape. I think that {{PD-Pre1978}} is probably a better fit. I've also seen {{PD-ineligible}} used on record label scans. Perhaps something like {{PD-user-w}} would work best, as it is a picture of a historical physical artifact.

I'd be inclined to agree with you on PD-text, but I'm aware I'm sometimes a little conservative with regards to its use. PD-ineligible is basically the same template. I'd only be happy with PD-Pre1978 if you have access to the record sleeve. PD-user-w is not really appropriate, as it is the copyright on the record itself which is being questioned. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why original record sleeve has anything to do with it. In fact, with the rare exception, 78rpm records came in generic brown sleeves with the company name printed on the sleeve, and perhaps some advertising regarding other issues available from the company. A small label like this would probably have almost undoubtedly come in a plain brown thin paper sleeve and nothing more. That's why label scans are so important to collectors of 78rpm records. A jacket as commonly associated with an LP, or a picture sleeve as associated with a 45rpm just doesn't apply to a 78rpm disc. I truly do appreciate your input. 78.26 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Doing a bit of talk page stalking here, but {{PD-text}} almost surely applies, in my opinion. From Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices of the US: "the copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." Jujutacular ^talk 23:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, per this talk page, I've removed the previous rationale and added {{PD-text}}. Thanks to everyone for their help. This has been very educational for me. I've also removed the CSD template, although I don't really like doing that, as I think it's CoI. Again, appreciation to all. 78.26 (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems a good result. What I was meaning about the sleeve was that we should probably check the sleeve for copyright notices, but I admit I don't know much about the record culture. J Milburn (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

AROUNDNASCAR

Hello, thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. That was quick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AROUNDNASCAR (talk • contribs) 23:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah , yes! I will definitely be helping on any NASCAR articles. If you ever need to contact me outside of Wikipedia, http://www.twitter.com/ryan__ohara is where I can also be found and if you need anything to be said on my show, please feel free to send your requests. (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Very cool! My favorite subjects tend to revolve around the race to stay in the top-35, and attempts to run the full race by teams that normally start-and-park. The ability of the 32 team to stay in the top 35 has been one of the season's biggest surprises, in my opinion. I'm very much looking forward to your contributions! 78.26 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gah, I hate the start and park. It taints the sport haha. The 32 team is definitely a bright spot on this season! Just a question, I've been seeing these user box looking things and vandalism warnings, where are the templates for these things? (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

There are useful templates everywhere (see Wikipedia: Templates), but this is probably the most useful place to start. By the way, I saw your edit on McCants, which is a good edit, but for controversial things like arrests you'll need to source your edit. You did so in the comments, but it needs to be added to the reference list. I'll do this for you, so you can see how it's done. 78.26 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't like start-and-parks either, just an attempt to run a full race by a team that doesn't normally attempt to do so. What really irks me is when a start and park team qualified and a team such as the 71, which normally runs the full race (at least this year) gets bumped off the starting grid.78.26 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh! Thank you. That helps. NASCAR really started to fall off the map in 2004 with the introduction of the Chase. I like the new 1-43 points system, but the seeding and the Chase really take the excitement away. It makes for a close finish, but it's fake excitement. The real champion gets cheated a majority of the time. (AROUNDNASCAR (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC))

Finishing off

Re. the FUR help/query, I'll consider this 'resolved' for now, then.

Of course, you can always ask me anything you like - any time.

Re. "is there a proper procedure for multiple talkbacks" - no, not really. Perosnally, what I tend to do on subsequent replies is, edit the same section (with my first 'talkback') and just add underneath ":I've replied again ~~~~" and "::And again ~~~~" etc.

Cheers,  Chzz  ►  07:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Elmo Tanner

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many, many thanks!! Had collected links on Elmo Tanner, hoping they would be able to be used in an article about him and you provided that. It's nice to know he now has recognition here for his talents. Thanks again! We hope (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see you at WP:SDA

I sent out notifications to all the active adventist editors I could find on this, or so I thought. You might be interested in helping write an article on Larry Geraty, the former President of La Sierra University and frankly one of the most prominent adventist academics around. A lot of the information is already on the sandbox page I linked, if you want to help make it into a coherent piece of prose, we would welcome the help! We just completed doing something similar with Heather Knight (educator) which is in the lineup for a DYK, and I think we can do the same with Geraty. BelloWello (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I find I may have the same problem this week.. looks like we'll be taking our sweet time with the article. I don't think (at this point) we're planning a sequence, although the other two presidents since La Sierra became independent already have articles... right now, just writing articles on major figures here and there. Unless you're uncomfortable, I would very much appreciate your collaboration as it will take a lot of work to get that article "mainspace ready." BelloWello (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mainspace ready? (snicker). Take a look at the articles I've created. Throw it out there and hope for better minds than mine to notice is more my modus operandi! <grin> 78.26 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it needs to be to a certain level in order to be "good enough" to be featured as a DYK, does it not? In any case, if you don't want to do it, that's fine, but we'd certainly like having you. BelloWello (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand, and I was mostly joshing, as I just had an article on DYK. You've got me intrigued, and I'll probably make some edits to it. 78.26 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, I had no clue, until another use posted it on the page, that Geraty was honored in the Congress. haha. BelloWello (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Horrible-a.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Horrible-a.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Done (to the best of my current ability...) 78.26 (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Col 3-10471.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Col 3-10471.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bot. Done. (Wikipedia didn't like my original image name, forgot to add tag when re-uploaded.) 78.26 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

edit to Michael Colina

my reference is as follows from the website http://memorialwebsites.legacy.com/GilbertoColina/Subpage.aspx?mod=1 , quoting the preceding web page in his(Mr Colina's)father's own writing: "My personal life has been a happy one, even after Marguerite, my wife, and I wanted children and found out we couldn’t have them. Later on, after World War II was over, we decided to start adoption procedures. It was not easy. We had to apply at different agencies. Some let us know that there were not many children for adoption. Another said the waiting period was a long wait, but we were willing to wait. In particular, once when I called to inquire I was told they could not give us a child because I was Cuban and a Catholic. Of course, when I got through talking to her, I am sure she will never forget me. My friends at Hawthorne Pharmacy said the telephone wires were smoking! Marguerite and I never gave up. We placed an application with the city and county social services. Mr. Wallace Kuwait was the director, a pleasant and helpful person and a gentleman. They began the adoption process. It was slow but we were optomistic and with the help of a few influential friends we got the ball rolling. Letters from Dr. Claude Squires, Dr. William Matthew, Dr. Grace Jones and Mr. Eadis helped a great deal. One day when we least expected it, the social supervisor called and gave us the news. They had a little boy. We went to see him and immediately fell in love with him. They said if we wanted to adopt him, we could come back the following week and take him home, as they had to take him to the doctor for shots and IQ tests. For a week we were walking on a cloud. We were high up, getting all the necessary things needed for a newborn and making all the arrangements. We now had to decide on a name and it was not easy. But Marguerite, now a mother, decided to call the new family member Michael Alan Colina. Soon we brought Michael home to 409 Rensselear Avenue and everyone in the family celebrated the happy occasion. " Whodonit (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. I've added the information. I'll bet his birth name was Michael Alan Dalmau Colina, but the source doesn't state that. Great detective work! 78.26 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be certain that Mr Colina's birth name(I have seen and have access to the legal docs through our parent's estate) was absolutely Michael Alan Colina...only...no Dalmau...I know this, as I am his sister, Marsha Eileen Colina DOB 12/23/1952 Thanks for duly noting! Whodonit (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Very good! I hope my most recent edits are to your satisfaction, let me know if I can re-word something better. When you see your brother, you can tell him there's a Wikipedia editor who very much enjoys his music. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Noldi Schreck

Hello. I think you're moving a little too fast with the "one reference" tag as moments ago, I created the article, starting with, yes, one reference. Now there are two. Give me a few minutes, and I'll add others. Check my edit history, and you'll see that I do a solid job with that. Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and happy editing. If you'd like to collaborate on an article, just let me know! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the template mostly to draw attention of other qualified editors who are interested in the subject. I'm afraid I have no expertise at all on this subject, I ran across it while on Recent changes patrol. I'm always willing to help out if I can, though, so let me know if there's something I can do for you. I have access to Dallas Morning News articles that most don't through the local library system. 78.26 (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That's cool! Maybe it's time I scope out some Dallas related topics; I'll give it some thought. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GWS Motorsport

Please see my note at your recently proposed AfD. — chro • man • cer  05:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I may have been unclear. I tagged the other article created by the same guy as speedy G11 when it was obviously promotional (the text has since been changed). I just don't think it's a good idea to AfD anything before a prod has been declined or the creator's been contacted, as in WP:BEFORE. — chro • man • cer  05:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points, thank you for direction. Would you please elaborate on what you mean "prod has been declined"? Do you mean a speedy delete WP:PRODSUM? I'm not sure how that would work, given that a speedy delete nomination usually gets an article killed within seconds, which is not my intent whatsoever. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm referring to the third process for deletion. There's speedy, to immediately kill articles which are eminently useless. This is a great tool, but not something I'd use very much on Recent Changes patrol, because when a newbie gets a page killed immediately it's extremely discouraging. There's AfD, which takes consensus and a long time, and is only necessary for controversial deletions. Better to start with is WP:PRODing the article, which is a process for tagging an article for deletion within seven days on any grounds. It can be declined at any time by anyone, including the article creator, which makes it ideal for use on pages that have no clear reason to exist but can't be speedied. In the context of what I said, articles are not normally put to AfD until a prod has been declined. That way we don't clutter AfD with unambiguous deletions not requiring greater consensus. I recommend that before you put any page to AfD, you at least try a PROD and see what happens. If the creator or someone else resists, you have someone to work with, and it doesn't prevent you from AfDing the article later if it can't be salvaged. — chro • man • cer  05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Truly useful, many sincere thanks. Indeed, PROD is much closer to what I had in mind. In the meantime, I've found a few sources on the subject, so the article is probably salvageable. Again, your explanations have been most helpful. 78.26 (talk) 05:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good one. — chro • man • cer  17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aretino Records

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks!! Thank goodness for Auto-wiki browser :) I can do regular stuff in one window & just double-check the AWB window, one click, and move on... just 10,000 or so more pages to go through with the albums category ;) Skier Dude (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Decca

Sorry about that - the King autobiography details his relationship with Lewis which also has cuttings from magazines and papers at the time confirming the relationship. No C-I-C (Lewis' autobiog) is also worth checking - both hard to find tho'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.172.252 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

65 My Life So Far; Jonathan King; Revvolution Books; Amazon.com; P216-219; cuttings pics section 5p4/6p9; No C-I-C; Sir Edward Lewis; E-Bay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.172.252 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Equivalence principle

My removal of the "Proposed geometric test" section was not vandalism; it's basically an advertisement for "Uncle" Al Schwartz's Eötvös torsion experiment. I think it would be a fine experiment to run, but until it actually is (or at least proposed in a proper journal paper) it doesn't belong here. 67.86.70.182 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I agree that the external link needs to be removed. There are several other sourced references that seem pertinent and independent of the Eötvös experiment. What would happen if we removed all references to the mazepath website, but left the rest in there? There are other hypotheticals in this article, so it does not seem to violate the tone of the article as a whole. Would appreciate your additional thoughts. 78.26 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Shall we move further details to the article's discussion page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.70.182 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page.
Message added 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiPuppies! (bark) 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Album jackets scans

Hi 78.26,

A couple months back you offered to provide scans of Andy Williams album jackets if I needed them. I was wondering if you have either of the jackets for the first Cadence collection of his that they put out in 1958 that was simply called Andy Williams. The first version has him standing next to someone dressed in a lion costume, and the other is just him against a red background. I'll probably post the album page over this next week, and if you have them and would be able to post them at some point when you have time, that would be great. Thanks! Danaphile (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think I have this. I have all the singles (need 78rpm label scans?), so never looked for it. I know I don't have the lion cover. Both Sides Now has low-quality images on their Cadence discography [www.bsnpubs.com/cadence/cadence.html]. Very sorry to dissapoint on this one. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That's okay. Thought I'd ask just in case. Best to you as well. Danaphile (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bohumir Kryl

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at I dream of horses's talk page.
Message added 17:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses @ 17:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Singles history

MacArthur Park of length 7:21 was released in 1968. Bob Dylan's 'Like A Rolling Stone' of length 6:13 was released in 1965. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurymouth (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. The edit I reverted said that prior to Dylan's single, no single longer than three minutes had ever been played on the radio. Let me know if I made some other error. 78.26 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that MacArthur Park couldn't possibly have been the turning point in singles above three minutes playing on the radio as it was released in 1968 however Dylan's Like A Rolling Stone (6:13) was released and aired on the radio in 1965 and it is widely considered as the reason why the radio started playing songs over 3 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurymouth (talk • contribs) 21:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we are in absolute agreement. My objection, to a different editor, was the statement that said that no single had *ever* been played that was longer than 3 minutes. This is true in general, but in the 1940s, for instance, the big band single was typically instrumental-vocal chorus-instrumental. These routinely went longer than 3 minutes (although not much longer), and were played on the radio with regularity. As a specific example, Count Basie's "I Can't Stop Loving You" from 1963, #77 on the charts, certainly recieved significant airplay, and runs at 4 minutes and 34 seconds, thereby disproving the statements that I reverted. However, this has nothing to do with your edits, which are correct, as Dylan's single was certainly a game-changer. All the best, 78.26 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello 78.26/archive2011! 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 then 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

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Tb

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Warry-Smith.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Non-free rationale for File:TerryGibbsReza.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:TerryGibbsReza.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:String-A-LongsWideWorldHits.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:String-A-LongsWideWorldHits.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:NorrieParamorJustWeTwo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NorrieParamorJustWeTwo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Muckross Stream

Please explain why this article (muckross stream) is considered for deletion and what is meant by notability. Many thanks. Sean Brennan (tradmusicman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tradmusicman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The place to start regarding notability is Wikipedia:Notability. Are there any reliable sources that mention the stream? Facebook doesn't count. I'm sorry it's a bit jarring to have an article you spent time on nominated for deletion. I hope that someone with knowledge (and sources) about the subject will improve the article. I'm pretty sure the article will be kept, as many editors feel that any named geographic feature is inherently notable. If you think there's something I can do to help rescue the article, please let me know, I'll do my best. 78.26 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I've edited the article and removed over long preview and external link. I'm new to wikipedia, tried to research this stream but came up a blank on the internet, hence I decided to research and publish on wikipedia for future use. I've charted the stream locally and based from information from a photocopy sheet of paper that appears to have come from a book but I cannot establish source. I used facebook to advertise for more information to come forward and invite discussion, thus my reason for inclusion into the external links in the first instance. I would welcome any help in rescuing the article as I feel this information could be lost for future generations and I would also like to chart other now defunct stream in my area, that all flow into the main River Dodder. Many Thanks. Sean Tradmusicman (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, 78.26. You have new messages at Pichpich's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wintley Phipps article

• Hi 78.26, thanks. Your help is appreciated in all counts. I have spent most of my time collecting sources and putting them on the Wintley Phipps talk page, along with relevant quotes. This is so that anyone who can make use of these sources to further establish the article can readily do so. The more I study about Phipps, the more I appreciate his story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on linking to streamed copies of albums

Wikipedia policy allows us to link to legal streamed copies of albums. It would be useful to draw up a guideline on how and when to link to such albums; however, there is concern that it may not be appropriate as the music would not be available in all parts of the world. Is the benefit of having access to the music for most users outweighed by the fact that some users will follow a link to find the music is not playable in their region? Your view would be helpful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Papa Celestin's Golden Wedding

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi 78.26, thanks for your help on my user page. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)