|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
If someone has the time, this needs some work ... it lacks a chronological order and is a bit too .... gushy. I have removed some of the worst excesses. It needs references for the Kramer quotes. It has an excess of red Wiki links. It also needs a more precise production credits section, rather like Nick Launay, which I can do in the next few days. Grimhim 02:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added production credits. His engineering credits, which are rather more numerous, can be added beneath. I may get a chance tomorrow. Grimhim 11:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:WoodstockTheAlbum-Cover.jpg
Image:WoodstockTheAlbum-Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Year of birth?
Encyclopedic tone and neutral point of view
I've just reverted the recent batch of edits as the tone and format was more like a promotional blurb than an encyclopaedia article - Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view. Feel free to add additional content to the existing article, but please take care to maintain the tone of the current article. Cheers - Gobeirne (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to point out uncivility in the above comment and voice your disapproval. Don't delete other poeple's comments, however, as that is just as much a violation of WP policy as being uncivil. And since two wrongs don't make right, take your grubby hands off my comments. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Instead of deleting comments you disapprove of, spend your time more productively and adress the underlying issue by bringing the 'significant collaborations' section up to wiki standards by removing blatant ass-kissing (even if it's the ass of a producer whose work I enjoy). This is not EK's PR campaign page. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not delete your comment. I undid the change because it was an inappropriate comment left by an anonymous coward which makes it vandalism. I am tempted to undo your anonymous comments again but if you want to make an ass of yourself, be my guest. But next time have the guts to attach your name to it. Robert.Harker (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
"I did not delete your comment. I undid the change..." OOOh, semantic dodgery approaching newspeak territory. WOW! You must be sum kinda innerlectchell tryin' his mindtrickery on me! Puh-lease. Removing comments from talk pages is frowned upon. Not having a wiki account doesn't equal vandalism (much less on talk pages) as wikipedia obviously explicitly allows it (if not, why not require/force people to create an account), whether you like it or not. You're labouring under the misapprehension that your personal tastes in what constitutes vandalism carries any weight. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)