User talk:Steve Pastor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello Steve Pastor! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, ask me on my talk page, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. And remember, no question is "stupid"; if you have anything, absolutely anything that you'd like to know, feel free to drop on by and leave me a message! :D Happy Editing!

Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical
Wikimedia.png

GeorgeMoney ☺ (talk) ☺ (Help Desk) ☺ (Reference Desk) ☺ (Help Channel) 20:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WCS page[edit]

Hey Steve, I just wanted to say thank you for the edits and sources you've been adding to West Coast Swing. I've been hoping that someone could come and clean up that page! I also wanted to mention a few things that will make your editing experiences easier:

  1. You can add the date and your username to our comments by simply typing ~~~~ after your comments. It will also add the time, which is helpful for other editors.
  2. Article "Talk" pages are typically formatted with the newest discussions on the bottom of the page so that readers can read sequentially down page. I just reformatted the Talk:West Coast Swing page to fit this format, and added some headers (feel free to change the header I placed over your comments if you feel it inappopriate). If you add more comments there and want to add your own header, just add ==My topic== and it will come out with the correct formatting if you hit preview or save.

Happy editing, and we'll see you around!--Will.i.am 10:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Line dance on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Lcarsdata 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob Wills[edit]

I've been working on Bob Wills, and all of a sudden a contents box showed up. Neat. But I don't see it in the edit box anywhere. It would look a lot better at the top of the article. Do I have to start a new section to get the box ABOVE the 1st section? Thanks Steve Pastor 19:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, hold on a second and I'll look into that article. --Flying Canuck 19:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, the way the content box works is that it adds itself after the first section is created. In the case of Bob Wills there is a rather long introduction paragraph. (The box assumes that first paragraph is an introduction.) So yes, you need to create anothe section above the one already there. I added a section called entering music, please change to something more appropiate I haven't read the article, but it shows how the content box changes. Hope this helps. --Flying Canuck 19:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

When the "merge with the Texas Playboys Discuss" box was removed the "This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article, especially its introduction, section layout, and relevant internal links. (help)" box started showing up. I've added sections, references, etc. Is that box really needed at this point? Thanks in advance. Steve Pastor 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If you feel that the article has been improved enough, go ahead and remove it :) Bjelleklang - talk 21:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of Google for selecting terms to use[edit]

Hi. You changed my "cape position" on the line dance page to "sweetheart position", based on a Google search with 846 hits for the former and 1290 hits for the latter. It doesn't matter to me which term is used, but I wanted to point out that while showing that one terms gets 100,000 hits and the other gets 6 is probably significant, 846 versus 1290 doesn't give any kind of indication that one is "right" and the other "wrong", or that one is in any way preferable to the other.

It could mean that one person uses the one of the terms on his website, and he has 500 pages that refer to it. It could mean nothing at all, because half the hits for one term or the other could be situations where one sentence ends with the first word and the next sentence begins with the second word, or where the term is being used in an entirely different context from the one under discussion. Even if a thorough study were to show that the number of people who use Term X exceeds the number of people who use Term Y, it doesn't mean that Term Y is an inferior term whose replacement everywhere it's been used in Wikipedia is justified.

It's a general Wikipedia principal, I believe, that changing someone else's perfectly good text merely because you like your terminology better shows a lack of courtesy and respect. It demonstrates a competitiveness that isn't what Wikipedia isn't about. Changing text because a Google search gives a larger number of hits to one term than to the other, where both of them are obviously in common use, is similarly unwarranted. Not the end of the world—this is hardly a major offense—but I just wanted to bring it to your attention. --Largo Plazo 00:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, got your response. It's a case of my going by your comment without looking at the actual change. Sorry about that. Two sorries in three days, I need to be more careful.
Hakuna matata (There is no problem. They actually say that in Tanzania.) Steve Pastor 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ride 'Em Cowboy[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your contributions to the Abbott and Costello film, Ride 'Em Cowboy. However, the first line you added, "Elle Fitzgerald plays Ruby, who fills several roles as one of the employees of the ranch, and comes to the aid of the ." is an incomplete sentence. I am sure you meant to finish it, but were somehow sidetracked. Please return to the page and finish your thoughts on who Elle "comes to the aid of the..." Thanks again for helping to make the article better. Donaldd23 20:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Wow, are you on top of it! Thanks, I don't think I would have seen that one for a while. And here I was feeling bright eyed and bushy tailed today. Looks like I forgot to save the last page I worked on. Thanks again.Steve Pastor 20:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. That page is on my watchlist and I happened to be online at the time. Don't forget to go back and finish the sentence. Thanks! Donaldd23 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

boogie woogie contribution[edit]

Do you have a date or any other info on Johanssons boogie-woogie-vals? It would be good if you could add a reference to that sentence so we could better intergrate it into the article. Thanks Steve Pastor 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It became a hit in 1944, but he wrote it earlier. Anyway I've added that is was in 1944 to the article. I found the chords[1] and you can probably find an MP3 at some torrent if you want to listen to it. // Liftarn

Alan Freed: TV[edit]

Hi Steve: As per your request for "Alan Freed, TV," I just added what info. I have on the episode I taped and watched last week . . . "[Note: The re-broadcast of this particular episode of TTTT occured on The Gameshow Network on February 4th or 5th, 2007]." Thanks and all the best, Bill Keane, aka Keane4.

Bill Haley[edit]

Thanks for the edits to the Bill Haley article. However you shouldn't remove so-called "redlinks". These are vital to Wikipedia as they indicate articles that need to be written. I have put the Down Homers link back accordingly, as well as Kenny Roberts (but good catch that it was linking to the wrong individual, so it now links to Kenny Roberts (musician). 23skidoo 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

So, how long do you think that non functioning links should be kept?Certainly not indefinatly?Steve Pastor 21:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in replying but I didn't realize you had posted this question. My understanding is redlinks have no expiry because you never know when someone will get around to making an article. I've "de-redlinked" articles that I personally had wikilinked 2 years or more previously. To more recent matters, thanks for uploading the link to Sonny Dae's version of Rock Around the Clock. Are we allowed to hotlink directly to MP3 files? I'm not sure what the policy is on that. We can link to "OGG" files directly but MP3s take up a bit more bandwidth. I'm not sure what the rule is on that, but it's good to have. 23skidoo 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The RCS hosts samples of songs, not the songs themselves in mp3 format. This site is made possible by the Hugh F. MacMillan Law Library of Emory University, as it states in the site itself. They invoke Fair Use to make the samples available. If they can do it, surely we can link to it. It is a great resource. Here's the url for the main page of this site [2] Steve Pastor 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Elvis Presley article[edit]

You did an excellent job at summarizing and fixing the time-line in the Sun Records portion of this article. I hope you will stay and share your further insights and improvements with us - so that the article may be presentable enough for being featured. Thanks. --Northmeister 16:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I've done quite a bit of work on the early history of rockabilly, and you can't talk about rockabilly without talking about Elvis. Thanks for the encouragement. And thanks for taking on this reorganiztion of this article. Steve Pastor 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, only just seen your post about the Carl Perkins reference on the Elvis DVD (you left the post on my user page instead of 'Talk'!). Not got the DVD in question, but I may get to borrow it. Let you know... Rikstar 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations at the Elvis article. You've been a big help there. We're trying to get the article to an acceptable level for featured try. If you have any more observations let us know. I'd also like to invite you back to make any edits necessary to remove trivial matters and reduce the length if you feel there is any. Thanks. --Northmeister 03:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 ensure 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 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 22:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Western music[edit]

You've made some good comments in the western music discussion. I think that any textual (as opposed to Internet) reference on the matter would point out the influence of Czech music on Texas. One has to remember that the European settlement of Oklahoma is rather recent, coming mainly after 1880. So, the roots of the music point more to Texas. The European (as opposed to Mexican, and within this, Spanish) roots of Texas music are German, Czech (in the 19th century called "Bohemian") and British Isles. Dogru144 14:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Western music[edit]

You've made some good comments in the western music discussion. I think that any textual (as opposed to Internet) reference on the matter would point out the influence of Czech music on Texas. One has to remember that the European settlement of Oklahoma is rather recent, coming mainly after 1880. So, the roots of the music point more to Texas. The European (as opposed to Mexican, asn within this, Spanish) roots of Texas music are German, Czech (in the 19th century called "Bohemian") and British Isles. Dogru144 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:SullivanPresleyHoundDogOct1956.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:SullivanPresleyHoundDogOct1956.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Jitterbug[edit]

The quote that you re-added to the Jitterbug article is already in the first paragraph of the article. So I removed your text to avoid duplicating info.

I'm not sure if you wanted to specifically draw attention to the quote or to the fact that jitterbug was danced to western swing music. If you would like to add what kind of music people danced jitterbug to, then that's a much more complex issue. AFAIK, people have danced "jitterbug" to many types of music, including big band swing music, western swing music, rock & roll, rockabilly, country western, blues, hip hop, etc -- it all depends on which dance is meant by jitterbug. It's not clear to me that the page should list all of these different types of music since the page is about an ambiguous dance style. The music info might be better on the Swing (dance) page or the page for the actual dance style that the newspaper article is referring to since it does not apply to all the dances that have been called jitterbug.

panda 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jitterbug 2[edit]

Please don't sut and paste text from other websites. Copyright violation. Against the law. Not to say that this text is of unknown authorship, see wikipedia policy about reliable sources `'Míkka 23:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jumpswing[edit]

Since you look like know things, please take a look at Jumpswing: is it a real thing, or just massive promo of a new dance craze? `'Míkka 23:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jitterbug refs[edit]

The references that you deleted from Jitterbug were examples of how people use Jitterbug interchangeably with East Coast Swing and Jive. There's nothing unsuitable about them in the context that they were placed, so they should be replaced. panda 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:SullivanPresleyHoundDogOct1956.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:SullivanPresleyHoundDogOct1956.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

SteveP, let me know if you need any help with this or the following image to get it up to par per standards. --Northmeister 13:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think with this image just update the 'fair use' rationale by being very specific as to how the pics is used. Make sure copyright info is included. --Northmeister 02:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Same with this pic. Put the copyright info in and update how the picture is used being very specific to its use within the article. The use info is not specific enough. --Northmeister 02:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Burlison on Arthur Gunther

I'm not a fan of Wolfgang Doebeling. He is a highly regarded music journalist in Germany ((and proably in Europe for a certain kind of music) and was proably a personal friend of the late John Peel. But in my opinion he is a snob and I don't want to get in any contact with him. But he also a very reliable source and he knows what he is talking about. He writes for the biggest Berlin City magazine "Tipp"(an equivalent to "Time out" in London for instance) among others and the radio station "rbb radio eins" where he aired his show is a part of a big public station like NBC in USA. I think if someone like Greil Marcus or Peter Guralnick are considered as a reliable source , Doebeling is that ,too. And I'm telling you this disliking the person. Maybe you can get in contact via google research with him - he is a very anglophil guy but also a selfhating german. I'm not sure if he did the interview by himself or got it from an archiv outside Germany. Be he will know - I#m sure. 87.162.49.98 17:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Franco, Deutschland

Non-free media (Image:West Coast Swing.jpg)[edit]

The image failed the basic fair use rule for wikipedia: "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents". It is used in the article about dance, not about the program. `'Míkka 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Trachoma[edit]

You asked me about verification of the Trachoma theory. This was my source:

I added it in at the "References" section at the end of the article. Unfortuately you deleted it. Ogg 08:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sharecropping United States section is gone[edit]

Please look at the edits between 10:33 and 19:48. that whole section is gone. get it back, if I can. Thanks Steve Pastor 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. There it is at the bottom of the page. DUH! Steve Pastor 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ngorongoro-Zebra-Wildebeest.JPG[edit]

This image will be deleted shortly, so please replace if you plan to. -Regards Nv8200p talk 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Elvis[edit]

Hi Steve. Would appreciate your comments on my recent edits. Sorry ED Sullivan bit has not been to your liking, but joint efforts of editors are making this a problematic part. I have suggested making only a brief reference to the shows to avoid all this. I did it before, but 141 went and reverted it without others having the opportunity to comment. Thanks. Rikstar 06:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I see 141 is back - no surprise. Any idea who can help? It really is getting to be a pain achieving any progress. Will check out back ups. Rikstar 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: your message on my talk page. We should seek help for enforcement of previous decisions as done in the past. This user was blocked before for the same type of behavior. Thatcher31, JKelly among others might be best to contact in this regard. --Northmeister 00:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Not vacationing soon, and I've left message with Thatcher31 already, though they are on a break and may not get involved in anything heavy. Rikstar 16:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} find a way to make it possible for for the Elvis Presley article to once again achieve GA status or higher. One editor has consistently ignored requests for discussion and consensus decision making. Said editor has a history regarding this subject. [3][4] [5]. It is currently impossible to make any progress on this article. Steve Pastor 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your question is, but if you're having problems with another editor, you should try going through the Dispute Resolution Processes to resolve the issue. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Elvis 2[edit]

Perhaps it would be best to file a case with ArbCom considering this is an old situation revisited. I had no idea. Mediation failed before, it seems unlikely that it would work now. Also, considering he is, as before, inserting the homosexual/bisexual claims, it seems his editing style has not changed. Let me know what you all do. LaraLove 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No Steve, I have not contacted ArbCom. Rikstar (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You can list me, but contact Northmeister - he has ideas and thinks ArbCom might not be the way yo go. The latest lock/protection is interesting - makes some users suddenly look sweet and innocent. Rikstar (talk) 09:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around - needed time out. Have made an effort to work with LaraLove's proposal on talk page, starting today. Rikstar 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Made a few changes. Hope you agree. May be more to come. Any that back up your views I might be able to add. Rikstar (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Maasai[edit]

I'm not sure what you were referring to in your post on my page. If it is all those tags I put on Maasai Music and Culture, I put them there because I hate to see a junky unreferenced cut/paste looking article merged into a decent article like Maasai with out a great deal of care. I came across the Maasai article accidentally in trying to clean up History of Nairobi, so I have no vested interest other that the quality of the ultimate article. It looks like you are doing a great job on Maasai! Regards, Mattisse 21:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Keeping tabs on the Country article[edit]

I seem to have adopted this article, since country music and dance are interests of mine. Can you recommend an easy to use bot that would help me in keeping those unwanted links out of the article? Steve Pastor (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish. As far as I know, the only way to keep it clean is to monitor it manually. Let me know if you'd like help keeping an eye on it, or any other articles. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Any and all help is welcomed.[edit]

The external links that are already there on the Delmore Brothers article are my major sources thus far. I avoid plagiarism by rewording and Mix matching. I am both lazy and under experienced when it comes to sourcing. So yes feel free to give me pointers and or do the sourcing yourself. And also feel join me in the actual writing. The only thing I want to avoid is committing my time to any particular project. I am a slow typer and I tend to put things off and or go to other projects.

But with that said please feel free to join in. Thanks for your note and Be well. : Danny W Albion moonlight (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Good. As you may know I did not create that article . I actually prefer Sections format, So go for it. : Albion moonlight (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Elvis ArbCom submissal[edit]

Willing to contribute, Steve - just tell me where to post it. Rikstar (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for update. Will see what I can do, but my stomach is weak when it comes to revisiting stuff that frustrates and depresses me; will do my best. Regards, Rikstar (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The following is written to assist in Steve Pastor's ArbCom submission:

I posted my worries about improving the Elvis article on Dec. 8, 2006 - my comment is still in the summary of FA/GA submissions. My concerns actually referred to the involvement of one user, Onefortyone, though I did not mention him by name. His history already indicated that he had an alarming and persistent preoccupation with negative and sexually biased material, something not reflected in other encyclopedic articles. I noted he had at times been banned/committed violations.

By May, 2007, I was being actively encouraged by user Northmeister to edit (he has since given up) because of other editors' concerns about the state of the article; the lack of progress seemed tied to article length, trivia, fan bias, structure and to 141's continued involvement. In the last 6 months, I have tried to improve the article but I have felt regularly frustrated by 141's talk, edits, reverts, ignoring consensus and general tactics that lead me to seriously believe he has some kind of agenda to be disruptive and/or to have his POV included at any cost. His posting of a list of miswritten lyrics implying Presley was gay was as perplexing as it was disturbing. Responding to his claims, new submissions, etc. has taken up more time and effort than with any other user, and the payback has been negligible.

141 is shrewd: he knows how to play the edit warring game without getting into obvious trouble, his posts beg to be answered if only not to give his claims undue weight, and this has been as tiresome as it has been unproductive. His resorting to accusations of sockpuppetry in my case are deeply insulting - and there's no evidence. I hope that my own posts on the talk pages will give sufficient details about the specific objections I and others have had to 141's editing behavior, and that they will be seen as fair and as objective as possible. It should be noted however that the frustration over many hours of discussion/arguing with 141 alone has pushed me to the point where I have felt physically repelled at the thought of doing any more editing, period. I have stretched my patience to its limit trying to negotiate with/accommodate/tolerate 141, to ignore his rehashing of stale tactics/arguments. However, the evidence is there, I think, that this and other articles will never improve as they should with his continued involvement. I also believe he has scared off too many people who could help make this a featured article. And I may well be another casuality.

I hope this is of some use, Steve. if you need to cut it or have it clarified, let me know. Happy New Year. Rikstar (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Good to hear from you. I've been wondering what's happening, but like you, I've walked away from the article. Checking on it just showed loads of vandalism, but now its locked indefinitely, so decent editing can start again, in theory. The arbcom needs chasing; maybe laralove can point us in right direction (can't imagine she'd be keen to do much more). 141 has been quiet, but when some of his troublesome edits were removed, he just put them back in. I'm not surprised he's messing up Steve Allen. The man is a menace. Rikstar (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

On Wikipedia, tags always go at the top, unless the tags say "section."Spylab (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


Maasia & Culture Merger Proposal[edit]

Sorry about that, I left you to do all the merge work. I am now checking it, and changing redirects, and then I will change the culture article itself to a redirect to Massai#Culture. I would also agree with a deletion if you think that's better. Please prod me if I forget. -Wikianon (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Culture article is now a redirect, merge tags are removed and incoming redirects fixed. Please wait before deletion of the culture redirect until any remaining material is moved. I have added notes and Body Art section to Talk:Maasai for later inclusion. -Wikianon (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

ngorongoro[edit]

Who says anything about deleting...? Or you just didn't scroll the page down...? Seki rs (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Because I still haven't seen no articles starting with a picture! So I put it in the bottom... Seki rs (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Country "spam"[edit]

Just a note to let you know that I left that link there because the page represented by the link has a bunch of absolutely free mp3 files with very old music that is rarely heard. Yes, the larger site is commerical, but I think overall, it provides valuable content that can't be easily found elsewhere. Steve Pastor (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Those mp3 are just short samples, not full tracks. The site has very little useful information and seems designed primarily to sell CDs. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Elvis[edit]

Thanks for the note regarding the endless rubbish on the Elvis (Talk) page Hoserjoe (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Gene Vincent[edit]

I'd argue that in your recent edit of the EL's on Gene Vincent you hit the wrong target. The Spent site is probably the most comprehensive repository of GV info going. The fact that their book is featured on the front page shouldn't blind you to that. On the other hand the Videobeat link you left in features nothing but a bunch of DVD's of dubious legality on sale at $30 a pop. Just saying. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Boogie-woogie (music): Image:Typical boogie woogie bass 2.PNG[edit]

What is the confusion? Hyacinth (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Onefortyone ArbCom filing[edit]

Just for your information. The arbcom has analyzed the case, and not one arbitrator accepted it:

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/4).

For instance, arbcom member Sam Blacketer says,

Decline. Onefortyone is a restrained editor of the actual article on Elvis Presley and his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced and have stayed in the article. While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority. Discussion and debate is working. The current sanctions are in my view sufficient.

This means that the case was rejected. By the way, you may be interested to know that User:Hoserjoe and his sockpuppet BomberJoe, who vandalized the Elvis article by removing blocks of well-sourced content and attacked other users, have now been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Onefortyone (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

African dance.[edit]

Re your question on my user_talk page[6], I'm not sure what you're asking. Here's the diff to my last edit at the African dance article[7] which was just a clean up edit. My edit before that was a vandalism revert[8]. Can you point out my edit about the definition? -- Jeandré, 2008-03-26t11:11z

I had added "This article," as a preface to African dance, thus better describing the current content of the article, which, although misleading IMO, does not currently include dances of "North Africa". It looks like this edit was reversed when the vandalism was reversed. If this was not your intent, I'll just put it back in the content is expanded, if ever, to include "North Africa". Steve Pastor (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


Image copyright problem with Image:Line Dancing.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Line Dancing.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your welcome back message. Looks like it's back to the old grind. Rikstar (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ring shout[edit]

Thanks for your contribution to the article. I am about to add more biographical information about Zimbabwe Dance based on the record in OCLC WorldCat. Your information may open up a whole new area of literature on this subject. Does Welsh-Asante mention the ring shout in his text? And if so, does he also make a connection to dance forms in Angola? I know cultural traditions often cross national boundaries in Africa. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 08:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I probably had the same thought you did. That being that the ring shout is an Americanized version of African dances(s) as described by Welsh-Asante. The book was very specific to Zimbabwe. I looked a bit to find an drawing from early years to see if men and women were co mingled in the circle, for instance. But had no luck. I've got a couple more books out, and hope to find more. Glad to have you working on this. Hope you can find some good stuff. Steve Pastor (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What, if anything, does Welsh-Asante say about the ring shout? (I can't check out the book right now.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 21:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

She didn't say anything, if memory serves correctly, and I'm sure I would have noted it if she had. (book is back in library) Meanwhile, look for info from Jazz Dance. Steve Pastor (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I hate to say it, but I think we need to remove all the references to dance in Zimbabwe. One reason is that Zimbabwe is a region of Africa that was not as significantly affected by the slave trade, so did not contribute to the African diaspora as Angola and especially West Africa did. The ring shout is a phenom of the African diaspora, so any resemblance between modern Zimbabwean dance and the ring shout is most likely coincidental. Another reason is that in writing about the ring shout for Wikipedia, we have to confine ourselves to sources that specifically discuss the ring shout. Otherwise we're doing original research, or speculation, which is not what an encyclopedia is for.
The Stearns book seems to be a much better source. I think the description of the movements of the dance would fit better in the previous section, "Description," rather than under "Origin."
The part about "the African Circle Dance" is vague. Can you track it down to its source in Stearns, rather than using the indirect quote in Inequality in Early America? Maybe there's a book or two that the Stearnses borrowed from for their info on the ring shout. If so, I'll be glad to try to track them down in a few weeks. The shorter the chain of writers quoting other writers, the better off we'll be.
I'm glad there's another editor with a sustained interest in the ring shout! It's a great topic, and I think this article could become good enough for the front page (i.e., a "featured article.") -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

If A then B. The one source says a circle dance was common among Arficans "Inequality..." To me this substantiates the text in "Jazz Dance". A quick google search turned up several references for African Circle Dance. I picked the most authoritative one. While I agree with you that it would be better to go to the original source, the Jazz Dance book is good enough reference for me. I suspect that they thought that it was such an obvious thing that they didn't need to list a reference. And with the additional material from "Inequality..."....Both sources are verifiable, too. So, I'm good with the quality of the text. If you move things around, it's OK with me. Also, if you think that the referenced material does not meet Wiki standards... For me, this a stop on a much longer journey to learn more about African, and African American dance. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I had another thought about this...As I was reading the descriptions of the dances highlighted in the Zimbabwe book, I couldn't help but note that traditionally African dance was very conservative within it's own context. You learned the dances the prescribed way, and only when you had mastered that were you allowed to improvizes. Also, the well defined, and different roles of men an women are apparent. On a trip to Tanzania about 2 years ago, one athletic woman in our group joined in with the men doing the jumping dance, adumu when we stopped at a Maasai "cultural boma". The women gently took her over with the other women who were performing a much subdued movement. The freedom to improvise, the breaking down of role by gender, including the mixing of the sexes, dancing as partners rather than as a group, these are all things that happened during the African American experience. They are NOT characteristic of African dance. Leaving the Zimbabwe text in, at least gives people some clue about how things changed from Africa. Steve Pastor (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I need to do some reading before I can revise your contribution, but I do think it needs revising. One problem is the vagueness of referring to "African" dance. Africa is a big continent. The Atlantic slave trade threw sub-Saharan Africans from the west coast together with West Africans speaking a dozen different languages, Malagasy rice farmers, and a few Muslim scholars who could write Arabic. These were not people who had known much about each other before, they did not understand each other's speech, and they had little if any idea of a shared place called "Africa." This is the melange that formed African American culture. Much of the African continent, including Zimbabwe, played no part in this process. As far as I know, none of the Shona or Maasai people were enslaved in the Americas, nor is there culture the same as that of the Bakongo and other sub-Saharan peoples who were frequently enslaved by European traders. This is why I don't agree with drawing on features of Zimbabwean (or Kenyan) cultures to help interpret the African American ring shout. For example, while Shona and Maasai dancers strictly segregate men and women, it does not follow that all African cultures did so in the 1600s and 1700s.

I hope I've explained why looking at Zimbabwe does not give "some clue about how things changed from Africa." To put it plainly, Africa just isn't that simple. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 16:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can cite examples of men and women dancing together as partners, people making up their own "moves" without first learning how to do it correctly, or dances where there were not well defined roles based on the gender of the individual in traditional African dance, I would most certainly be interested in reading them. I have cited examples where the converse is true. Steve Pastor (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would begin by looking in regions of Africa most affected by the slave trade, as this is an American phenomenon, not an African one. Anyway, if you are trying to construct a theory about the origins of the ring shout, then brother, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. I didn't make that rule. The guidelines for content are in About Wikipedia, linked from the main page. Original research is specifically excluded.
To contribute to this article, it's essential to research what is already known about the ring shout, not to bring up other stuff that you think might be related. The article already mentions the only origin theories I'm aware of. If you find more information in your study of African dance, then please share it. But it must be about the ring shout, specifically, and it must come from a reliable source.
I'm not trying to cut you out; in fact, I hope you will stay interested and contribute. But keep in mind that this is a historical article about the African diaspora in the Americas. If you really think you can look at a tribal dance in east Africa in 2008 and draw conclusions about enslaved Africans in the Americas, then I don't think you'll be able to help much. Even tribal people have a history, and not all black people are alike. I assumed you understood that. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Maasai Land.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Maasai Land.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Rockabilly origins[edit]

Hello, provide me with source if I am wrong... Alan Freed used the term rock n roll (hope i am correct) in 1951(some sources say 1952) but the term did not catch up until 1955 when Elvis popularized it. It was not until 1956 when the term caught up.

www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608003189/Alan-Freed.html
www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2095.html 1952 first r n r concert in Cleveland Arena (Where rocky marciano was to have his last fight)
When elvis, scot, bill recorded thats all right mama, blue moon of kentucky (great bill montroe country western classic) they never said... hey guys elvis has idea...let's use term rock n roll on our new soon to be megahits. Remember they had slapping crescendo bass, so it was elvis who (not even knowing) recorded first rockabilly in july 1954. Now, you can not say rockabilly is mix of rock n roll. Billy Haley recorded rock around clock in april of 1954 but again bass was different even though he had drums, but both songs rock.

Then I can go to the great Cecil Gant who came up with Rock me baby all night long in 1949 and my, IT ROCKS!, He recorded similar song shortyly before he died, in 1951 and it was WOW! A member of my club told me about him and I am still impressed. I can say this dude is the father of rock n roll, but he did not popularize it. It was Bill Haley, he is the man and Elvis made it popular, it exploded in 1956.Elvis had no idea what he was recording and he did not call it rock n roll, rockabilly came on its own outside Alan Freed, it started way down south around 1953. I can say Graham Bell invented telephone and he did, but in 2002 (long overdue) us Congress changed it and rewarded Italian Meucci as the inventor, the problem was Meucci did not have the 10$ dough to extend his patent registration date (while he was working on it), thus it expired and Bell claimed the glory and lots of money. If he had lived, he would have won in Supreme Court, with his passing, the court dropped the case. Well, nothing is just/fair in life, it takes centuries to correct wrong, sometimes. Boogie woogie could be callled the earliest type of rock n roll. I would suggest you use different term if you have to change my edits. Reply here but provide me with sources on my talk page!

p.s. you are a pastor? Rhythm n blues term was there long before hillbilly, country rock or rock n roll... There are many mistakes on wikipedia, its great norm!
Carl Perkins also spoke on Tomy Snyder in 1998 about Elvis and rockabilly origins!
Let me know, rock n roll term was not used:

Ok, you should have told me that on my talk page, just to be sure, anyways, rhythm and blues section is missing and you even have no idea what that is

Elvis article[edit]

Hi Steve. A lot's been happening to this. It'll never be perfect. I'm glad a few new contributors are on board and that you keep your oar in. Length is no problem right now, given other similar biogs. Rikstar (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve if you get time go to www.howstuffworks"Elvis Presley Biography" it is a very well written article and I'm very fussy and hard to please when it concerns this entertainer. If you get time let us know what you think, in particular the 1956 period. Thank you. --Jaye9 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Steve,I've given you the wrong link, go to entertainment.howstuffworks.com/elvis-presley-biography.htm/printable-443k,heading Howstuffworks"Elvis Presley Biography". This is the biograhpy I would like you to look at,as she talks about the Milton Berle Show,The Steve Allen Show and The Ed Sullivan Show,amongst other topics. For example the lady writes:

"For years people have wondered why Elvis was censored during his third appearance on Sullivan's show. The simplest and most probable explanations is that Sullivan received negative criticism about Elvis' earlier appearances. Other,more outrageous explantions include the theory that the Colonel forced Sullivan to apologise publicly for remarks he'd made about Elvis to the press the previous summer and the waist-up-only order was Sullivan's way of getting back at Parker.

The wildest explantion was offered by a former director of the Ed Sullivan Show,who said that during his second appearance,Elvis put a cardboard tube down the fron of his trousers and madipulated it to make the studio audience scream. To avoid accurrence of that behavior,Sullivan supposedly insisted on the above-the-waist coverage for Elvis' final appearnace. None of these explanations offers any real insight into Sullvans' motivations but all add to the folklore surrounding this event,thereby enhancing Elvis' image as a nororious rock'n'roller" --Jaye9 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I always tell people to watch all 3 of the Sullivan shows on which Elvis appreared. It is available on dvd and used to be in the Elvis article as a reference. You would think that you would notice something like that. Elvis DID shake his legs while Sullivan talked in show #2. But I didn't see any "cardboard tube". Show #3 was the only show in which Elvis was shown only from the "waist" up. But he sang mostly ballad like songs on that segment. This text used to be in the article - . On the third Sullivan show, except for a short section of “Hound Dog” included in a medley, Elvis sang slow paced ballads and a gospel song. [1] The fact that Presley was only shown from the waist up on this last broadcast led to many second hand accounts that Sullivan had “censored” Elvis. .[2] [9] 1In spite of any misgivngs he may have had, as Elvis stood beside him near the end of this broadcast, Sullivan declared, "This is a real decent, fine boy. We've never had a pleasanter experience on our show with a big name than we've had with you... you're thoroughly all right." [3]Steve Pastor (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Matchbox (song)[edit]

{{helpme}} Please look at that page and let me know if there is a quick fix "rollback" solution where I could easily finish what I started. I want to preserve the unreferenced material on the talk page, remove the tag, and get my references back in. Thanks. Steve Pastor (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You shouldn't move article content to talk pages. I don't see a point where you've added references in the article. If you want, you can simply cut and paste the material back in then add your sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Elvis on Ed Sullivan[edit]

Hi Steve. I think you're not happy with the Sullivan section in the Elvis article. Neither am I, mainly because I sense your dissatisfaction - I've just tried to clean it up and read OK, without upsetting or getting into edit warring with previous editors. The existing text is well cited, but it obviously reads, as a whole, not like how you'd want it. Could you post your own version of how you think the "Sullivan experience" should read, on my talk page, the Elvis page, etc., for comment? It's only a a paragraph or two in the entire article. I want to know what you think, how you see the whole thing, backed up with refs. of course. You've made reference to how it used to read in parts, as if this was better, but I sense you feel strongly about this - given your dance background, access to all the Sullivan material, and all - but I'm not clear on how you think the thing should be as a whole. I've been busy with other things, but if I get any positive feedback from you about improving this from your perspective, I'll help/comment any way I can. Many thanks for your time. Rikstar (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hound Dog version[edit]

Hi Steve. I hope I've managed to copy this link OK. [10]. This is the 2min 4secs version I found on YouTube. I'm not sure if this is edited, but it's a whole lot better than the one in the Hound Dog article. If it is OK, could you add it to the article? Glad you're still around and making comments after everything you've had to put up with. Rikstar (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Just found this [11], a 2min 35secs version. Has extra instrumets dubbed onto it. Rikstar (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rikstar, This is the one - [12]. The second one is synced pretty well, but you're right, it's another recording with added instrumentation. Note the "slow mo" at the end so that Elvis's moving foot/leg stays "in time" with teh music. One of the reasons Presley bombed in Vegas in 56 was that their sound was "tinny", as one wag wrote. (It was the Sinatra days back then). Congrats on finding this. Let me know if you want me to do the replacements. Finally, people can see for themselves! Steve Pastor (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

AT[edit]

Hey, AT for me means Argentine Tango! I'll check it out when I have time. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you realize that this person is a spammer, who has been blocked for using a proxy.. Just thought I'd tell you Vandalism Destroyer 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was being polite. Hey, I LIKE Argentine Tango! and anything that allows me to write it...Steve Pastor (talk)

Rockabilly[edit]

Good call on those deletions from the see also list. It is amazing how quickly those lists attract garbage! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Good articles, just like liberty, require eternal vigilance. I used to use Brylcream, but it doesn't belong in that article.Steve Pastor (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I quite agree! Now, as to the message you left on my talk page: The biggest thing that needs to be done, as I said on the article talk page, is turning the plethora of external links in the text into legitimate references. This would not be difficult to do, but certainly time-consuming, 'cause there are a great many of them. I am not familiar with the website that is repeatedly linked, so can you tell me if it is reputable? If that is done, it will be a huge improvement. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollbacker permission[edit]

Granted per your request. Please see WP:RBK for instructions on use or feel free to ask me! Take it slow, learn more as you go. Cheers!--VS talk 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Bill Black hams it up.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bill Black hams it up.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Festive Greetings[edit]

Wishing you and yours a fun filled Christmas and I look forward to editing with you again in 2009.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New beginning: Elvis[edit]

Thought you should know I've been cheatin' on ya! I've done some severe pruning on Elvis, see[13]. I've tired of all the bloat an' crap and cut the article down by half, and added images. It's kind of a bare bones thing now with a bit more latitude. Any thoughts appreciated. Rikstar(talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Welcome![edit]

I found the spelling error using Lupin's Antivandal tool. Great edits, by the way, but I am sorry to say that I know nothing about "Texas Hop". Cheers!

--Wyatt915 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Maasai Land.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Maasai Land.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if there's any confusion over my comments.....[edit]

Hi Steve, just wanted to apologise if you thought that a comment of mine on the Elvis talk page was directed at you. For some reason my reply to Onefortyone is listed below one of your comments and it might, to some people, look as if it's a reply to you. I've explained on the Elvis talk page just below it, but felt it appropriate to offer a personal response to yourself, also. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed Sullivan[edit]

Hi Steve,

I saw a show about Ed Sullivan and it showed interviews of people who had been guests on his show,etc etc. I got the idea that Ed Sullivan was a very powerful man at the time and he could either make you or break you. One particular gentleman stands out in my mind. He was a jewish commedian and Sullivan had accused him of giving him the ups after his perfermance,he said he didn't. Because of this incident,this man said Sullivan made sure his didn't work again in the business for years to come,that is a real misuse of power and you could talk about what happened to the "Doors" as well.

I've viewed the vidoes you speak of and I carn't see anything of whatever. I saw an interview of Scotty Moore and he was saying that Elvis had said to him,why are all the girls screaming at. Scooty has said that Elvis did not wear underwear and with the type of trouseers he wore,things naturally moved around down there. All very innocent.

It's a wonder that Byron Raphel hadn't attached himself to Ed Sullivan show as well,instead he would say with his interview with Nash,that Elvis unzipped his pants and dry humped RCA's Nipper on stage,before thousands in October 28,1957 show in Las Angeles.

Were do all these rumors come from,I have no idea. But like rumors and gossips,they have a way of manifesting themselves and I believe it is human nature for people to attach themselves and they will, when they had nothing really that much to do with Presley in the first. They do and say these things to make themselves feel more important in the scale of things. I say let them,but it has no place or importance for an Encyclopedia Ariticle,it just draws away from what is important and that is the performances of those shows.

I believe that Ed Sullivan was concerned about all the controversary surrounding Elvis's wiggling,not toilet rolls,coke bottles etc that came much later. I like to see an article written during the fifties that state these stories,of thes rumors and gossip and I can tell you there are none. Lets just stick to what makes sence,not this trivial nonsense.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve,please note,these comments are not in any way directed at you. I'm just expressing my frustrations that's all. I only see you as someone who has alot of knowledge and insight and passion for these performances. I'm all for that. This is exactly what this article needs,knowledge and passion.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again Steve,as I'm just about to rush off,I only had time to take a quick look at the Elvis Information Network website and I noticed a recent story they have titled "Elvis photograher Richard Weede EIN Interview". As this story pertains to the Ed Sullivan Shows. Just thought you may like to have a look at it.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaye. Here is what I found "EIN: I like the idea of the large size canvas print as well as the look of the framed set of "Making History" behind the scenes shots.This period was soon after the Milton Berle Show when Elvis’ sexual antics on TV had caused a furore amongst Middle-America and there’s a great series of photos you took of Ed Sullivan deep in conversation with Elvis. Do you have any idea what the talk was about?

RW: I alluded to these pictures a little earlier. Sullivan was standing in front of Elvis, on stage at a break of some sort. They were quite close, but I am certain it was at this time Ed was reminding Elvis that this was a family show and he wanted no part of the hip swinging and suggestive movements that had given rise to such negative comments from the first show. I think the picture I have of Elvis rolling his eyes up really says it all. I could put numerous captions with that picture. In Elvis’s next appearance, Sullivan simply had the cameras crop him from the waist up." [14] Well he's flat out wrong that Elvis only appeared twice, and he is GUESSING what they talked about. Elvis DID pull a fast one on camera with the leg shaking while Sullivan spoke to the audience, and that may have finally gotten Ed. Nothing about a "device", I note. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Steve,found something recently on the MTV.com website titled "Elvis Presley Shakes It for ED Sullivan" Wake Up Video by Kyle Anderson 09/09/09. Hope you don't mind me sending this to you,but when I see anything on Ed Sullivan,I think of you,as I view you as someone who wants the section of the article on the "Ed Sullivan Shows" to be as accurate as possible. I'll also point out,that when I asked a certain editor,if he could find me any statements made by Ed Sullivan,The Jordonaires,Scotty Moore and DJ Fontana,about them mentioning any device,as they were there at the time. My question was not answered by that editor.

What really interested me about this article was,as you will read,it states that these shows of Elvis on the Ed Sullivan show were viewed by 82% of the total viewing audience,if correct I thought that might be an interesting bit of imformation to add,what do you think? Here's what they had to say:

"One of the more controversial moments in music on television happened on this day in 1956,when Elvis Presley performed for the first time on "The Ed Sullivan Show",Sullivan famously bristed at the idea of having Elvis on his show (he thought Presley's whole idiom was entirely too sexual and Sullivan considered his show as a family-friendly program),but he ultimately caved to popular demand (as well as a rating war with Steve Allen),Presley performed a handful of tunes on that episode,including "Don't Be Cruel" and his then-new single "Love Me Tender" (the lead track from the movie he was filming at the time). Though the mythology states that Elvis was only shot above the waist during his performances,his entire body was visible throughout most of the songs. The gambit paid off for Sullivan,as the episode attracted over 60 million viewers,which at the time as around 82 percent of the total viewing audience - a truly staggering number."--Jaye9 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found TV A Go Go to have the most thorough account of what was seen on the shows, and what is on the public record. It's like the author actually watched the kinescopes of the shows, which are of course now avaiable on dvd. What I have seen with my own eyes, and have included images of in the Sullivan article, is now in print so I have a written reference. Thank goodness for that. On the other topic, I have deleted the "junk" stuff from this and other sections repeatedly. I don't understand why other editors who have complained about it remaining in the article don't do the same. It's pretty frustrating to see it come back again and again. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

TV A Go Go states that 82.7% of tv viewers in America watched the 1st Sullivan apearance. I'm thinking MTC.com is quoting this book without crediting it. It's on page 16, so would be same ref as material I recently added. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis One Billion Sales[edit]

Hi Steve, I totally agree with you that the way I had worded the article to read "...sales believed to be in excess of one billion..." fitted into the article well, and was backed up by some very strong references. Sadly, soon after you reverted back to that version, user Cliffrichard reverted back to their own version. I've altered theirs slightly (their own references suggest sales easily over 600 million) and hope that they accept that as the fairest level. Of course, if you wish to revert it again back to what I originally had then feel free, I don't have a problem with that at all. I've explained to Cliff on their talkpage that some other editors may also disagree with their version. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sullivan Elvis Ready Move2.JPG[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sullivan Elvis Ready Move2.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Country Boogie vs. Rockabilly[edit]

Hello Steve, please take a look at this discussion User talk:DigbyDalton#Johnny & Dorsey Burnette and tell me what you think about that. I need your opinion. Thanks in advance, The yodeling cowboy (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Blues dancing[edit]

Are you still interested in that article? I just started a discussion, but I don't think people are actively contributing to it anymore... noticed you used to. Sancho 16:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Berry[edit]

As one of the significant contributors to the Chuck Berry article you might be interested that I have nominated it to be listed as a WP:Good article. There is often a delay between nominating and somebody being free to review an article; however, you may wish to keep an eye on it to see how the review progresses and perhaps help out on any issues if you feel you are able. SilkTork *YES! 10:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Western swing[edit]

Steve, Thank you for your nice invitation. Sure, I'd be glad to help if I can. BTW, it was not me who (based on your comment) recently changed its rating -- although it currently has a "C" rating. I think it could easily become a "B". If you click on "quality scale" in one of the beige project boxes on the discussion page it will take you to the criteria. I can go over it and clean up style, punctuation, etc. As for the lists, why not just put them in their own list article? RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Updates[edit]

OK I cleaned up a lot of tiny things. Looking at it in HTML, I think the biggest hurdle now to achieving a B rating is that the citations are in all sorts of formats. I have had folks insist they are all correctly formatted. RadioBroadcast (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve: I put a fair amount of work into the page today and hope you will agree I made a lot of improvements, including some basic reorganization. RadioBroadcast (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Rhythm and blues - your edits[edit]

Can I raise a couple of points? The fact is that the terms "rhythm and blues" and "R&B" were specifically used, a lot, in Britain in the 1960s, to describe the music that bands like The Yardbirds and The Who liked and sought to play. Terms like "beat music" and "blues" - which from your side of the Atlantic would be "British blues" - did not mean the same thing. So, I think that much of the text that you've taken out should be reinstated - and, probably more importantly, there should be a (very brief) reference in the intro to the use of the terms specifically in Britain in the 1960s. I think that culture-specific use of the term(s) is relevant. I also think that the text you've taken out on ska, and on later influence of what were called "R&B bands" in Britain in the 70s, should be reinstated (with refs, obviously) - they were notable trends/genres using the same terms, but in slightly different senses. As a general point, I'd argue that what we have in the article following your edits is too US-centric. Obviously (see my list of articles created if you like) I know enough about the history of the music that you, in the US, call "rhythm and blues" and "R&B" - but the way those terms were used in other parts of the world, particularly Britain (and also Jamaica) was slightly different, definitely notable, and should be mentioned and explained in the article covering those terms. I'll await your comments before making changes - it's rare for me to disagree with any of your edits! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As User:Sabrebd has made a similar point to me, I suggest we continue this conversation back at the article talk page (though I'm about to go offline for a few hours - sorry!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Maasai Land.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Country music[edit]

Hi Steve, What did you mean for "Still no reference for Maritime provinces???" and why you removed the paragraph from the lead? SJ (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your dissatisfaction with the Presley talk pages.[edit]

Hello Steve. Thank you for your candid comments. I know very little about rockabilly and it's origins. From what I've read elsewhere, it does seem unfair to state that Presley was an originator; popularizer, early performer of, etc. seem more accurate. I wasn't involved in discussion about this point (as far as I can remember) because of my ignorance of the subject. I'm not sure how the actual discussion went, or how you felt let down by it. Seems to me you raise a valid point, one that should be raised again. But then we come to the 'guard-dog' business.

The way I see it, for a very long time the Presley article was not progressing towards FA status. There was a real lull in the middle of last year regarding edits, enthusiasm and basic discussion. It needed people who had knowledge, who knew wiki style and citing inside out to shake the article into life. I think that happened when DocKino and PL290 arrived on the scene. I admit that I was taken aback by their speed of editing. I certainly wasn't part of any 'pack' of guard-dogs who took over the article and I don't see myself as one now. All I could do, and have done ever since, is read posts and edits by them and then say whether I agreed. If new contributors make suggestions, I also say if I agree with them, and why. I could easily have claimed that Doc and PL had 'taken over', or were jealously guarding the article and making me feel redundant - but I just didn't.

The reality was that Doc and PL were moving the article very quickly in the right direction. I don't think their efforts can be over-estimated, but they didn't suffer fools gladly either. Doc appears to have checked out the history of 141's involvement and I guess he wasn't prepared to put up with any BS. As a result I think it's true that Doc went over the top in some comments about 141. BUT: I have to weigh any views I have about that with the pain I feel from years of frustration and disruption caused by 141. I stayed neutral on that particular dispute involving Doc and 141, but if 141 tried any of his arsenal of tactics to get inappropriate edits included, or to cause disruption on the talk pages, then I responded. It is true that others noted the treatment dished out to 141. But if anyone expected me to bend over backwards to defend 141 after what I and others - including your good self - have been through, they can think again. And I wouldn't expect that stance to get me labelled a "guard-dog" either.

What is very unfortunate is the way contributors like Santamoly have wanted to make changes, but they have expressed themselves in a way that insults the efforts of other editors. If those editors happen to have been the ones who put in hours and hours of editing and research and achieved Featured status, perhaps they are justified in being defensive. The point is, even they cannot maintain opposition against edits that are valid, but that validity needs to be proved. I have asked Santamoly on several occasions to please specify changes he would like, but he hasn't. He makes vague comments about Presley's army achievements and his collection of cars. And then he says things like "none of you have seen any of his films". This isn't helping him.

Conversely, I recently made the specific suggestion that the pronunciation of his surname be discussed and clarified in the article. And that's what happened. On that basis I think, Steve, that if you have a valid claim about the rockabilly edit, you could raise it, and if your claim is backed up with good sources, it would get a fair hearing. I would certainly back you up, but how much would depend on subsequent discussion.

I'm pretty clear in my own mind that someone or some people have to keep a very careful eye on the Presley article because it would definitely deteriorate very quickly if they didn't. I'm also clear that anyone can keep an eye on it, or make changes, BUT they have to know what they are talking about. Recent edits by newbies don't seem to me to have been well thought out, but I note how in one case this was patiently explained in detail by DCGeist -presumably another who could be labelled a guard-dog. If any such 'guardians' overstep the mark, there surely are remedies in wikipedia's policies to deal with it. However, the tone of such responses is important, and I wouldn't want any newbie put off by curt dismissals. I wonder: how many newbies were put off by 141's presence!

Cheers, Steve, and thanks again for your appreciative comments. Memphis left me with mixed feelings; I had a fascinating time there, but it was also where I lost my passport...:( Rikstar409 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem[edit]

Hi. Another contributor noted on September 3rd, here, that some of the content in Blue Moon of Kentucky had been copied verbatim from a previously published source, here. As it seems that the content was placed by you, you should have been notified of this, but the contributor who tagged the issue may not have noticed who placed the content. Are you able to verify that this content is public domain? It may be, but on Wikipedia we only presume content is public domain if it is published before January 1, 1923. Otherwise, we need to verify it. I'll relist the article for another week at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to allow time for you to address these concerns. Without some reasonable indication of PD, the content will need to be removed, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Per your note at my talk page, here, I have deleted the pasted content from this article.
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Contributor Copyright Investigation[edit]

Hello, Steve Pastor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD Notification of Reception of country music[edit]

Hi, is it possible to get your input on this matter? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_15#Reception_of_country_music. Thanks, Seniortrend (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There should not have been much controversy in putting this through the Speedy Deletion tab, but it appears that it had gone through that and survived before. The author of this also appears to be an administrator. Thanks, Senior Trend 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniortrend (talkcontribs)

Spade Cooley[edit]

Steve, I agree this section should be expanded. I'll try to work on it soon. RadioBroadcast (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Details and citations from the LA Times added! RadioBroadcast (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Country Western[edit]

Hi! Sorry to take awhile, I just got your message. I have to smile, my dad who claimed he hated THAT music always listened to Spade Cooley! Have you checked out the Molly Bee article? I have some good sources there. Going to move your note to my talk page and ponder it. Anything more specific to look for? Hadn't thought of it in a Sociological perspective, I just grew up there for the good times! ;-) Namaste... DocOfSocTalk 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Country Music[edit]

Hey, got your note. I actually know almost nothing about this subject. I reverted the edit I did simply because it was unsourced, awkwardly placed, and had horrible spelling. I was not commenting on the quality of the information just the suitability on a technical level for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sorry I can't be of more help. SQGibbon (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Wills birthplace[edit]

As best I can determine, "Old Union" snuck into the article in this edit by an IP editor on 24 September 2010. There was no new source supplied for the change. These two localities seem to be only about 22 miles apart,[15] and it may only be a matter of semantics. But, as you know, the currently cited source does not support the text, and I can find no reliable source to support Old Union as the birthplace; remarkably, a Google Books search for <"Bob Wills" "Old Union"> turns up exactly ZERO results (not even any Wikipedia mirrors!) while <"Bob Wills" Kosse> yields 111. Unless you're aware of something out there, I'd think we should change it back. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

problem with the candombe page[edit]

not only in english, but in spanish the article is being edited to distort the truth. by people who are probably getting paid by some ministry of culture. candombe music is only played in one city in all of south america. to hear it somewhere else, you have to go to africa. dont let them fool you

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/849318/candombe

that should be a good enough source

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.158.153 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC) 

PStoller[edit]

Hey, Steve. I'm Peter Stoller, VP of Leiber/Stoller Productions and son of Mike Stoller. Nice to meet you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstoller (talkcontribs) 19:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Patallacta vs. Llactapata[edit]

Check out the talk page for Inca Trail to Machu Picchu. Also look here: http://www.rediscovermachupicchu.com/llactapata.htm Dger (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not clear what you were saying in the talk page. The classic Inca Trail that goes to Machu Picchu goes past Patallacta not the Llactapacta that you are refering to in and that Thomson and Ziegler studied. They studied a site that is to the west of MP, on the other side of the river, and is reached by a different Inca trail. The site that is higher, smaller, and overlooks Patallacta is also called Llactapata, at least by some people. It may not be the correct name but that is a name used on Google Earth and by some other authors. If you read the reference http://www.kellscraft.com/IncaLand/incalands10.html, that is supposed to be by Bingham, it is clearly refering to the Patallacta near Km 88. Dger (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Elvis as an originator of Rockabilly?[edit]

Concerning the origins of Rockabilly, I would like to support your view, Steve. See Talk:Elvis Presley. However, DocKino is still policing the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino (or his alias, DCGeist) still reverts well-sourced additions to the Elvis article. On the other hand, he adds material that is in line with his personal opinion, falsely claiming that there has been a consensus on the talk page. Onefortyone (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino still adheres stubbornly to his errors. See his comments on the Elvis talk page. However, I found some additional sources that strongly suggest that Elvis didn't invent rockabilly. Onefortyone (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For further sources, see Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

"That sounds like Carl Perkins"[edit]

Hi Steve. The only source you've provided for this claim that Elvis said this is from the DVD Elvis '56. I've watched this DVD again, and there is absolutely no mention anywhere of Elvis saying this at all. He doesn't say it, no one claims he said it, no one even mentions Blue Moon of Kentucky at all. Also, the only place I can find anything about this being said online is via the Wikipedia articles that it has been added to with the Elvis '56 reference. Any other web pages that have it are simply copy/paste jobs of the Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I see absolutely no alternative than to completely remove these claims from Wikipedia as the citation does not back up the claims. If you are able to provide an alternative source, or even better an actual audio recording of Elvis saying it, then I'd love to know about it. Otherwise these claims will have to be removed. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Steve, thanks for the reply. In answer to your question, I'm not aware of it being a revised version. I have two versions of the documentary; the DVD and a television recording from the 90s. Neither of these has any mention of Elvis saying "That sounds like Carl Perkins".
I had a quick look in my Elvis Day by Day book to see if there was any mention of Elvis going to see Perkins before July 1954. The earliest entry about Carl Perkins is on September 17, 1954, when Elvis and the boys played Bethel Springs, Tennessee, 31 miles from Jackson. It states that Perkins went to see Elvis perform there and met with him after the show. It's not unusual for people to have met Elvis after the show during this time, as the crowds were still quite tame and Elvis was more than happy to meet fans and sign autographs. Anyway, Perkins would later state that it was during this meeting that he asked Elvis if Sun Studios were looking for any other singers who played similar to the style Elvis was performing. There's no mention of Elvis telling Carl he'd seen him perform before, there's no mention of Carl telling Elvis that he had been playing that style for many years before, and there's no mention of Carl asking Elvis if he'd ever seen him perform.
While this is all very interesting, it still isn't getting us any further to the answers as to whether or not Elvis saw Carl Perkins perform before July 1954. I'm aware that Perkins has claimed that Elvis told him he'd seen him perform in Jackson, but the sources claiming this don't make it clear if it was before or after July 1954. As you've said on the talk page, how would Elvis have even managed to see or hear Perkins perform in Jackson? I'm sure that if Elvis was to make such a trip it would have been well documented at a later time. I'm fairly certain that Elvis would never have made that trip on his own. I'm actually convinced that there's no way Elvis would have made the 85 mile trip (170 mile round trip) at the time before July 1954. He had no reason to do so, and its also debatable about whether or not he'd have had the money to do so. Throw in the fact that this information about Elvis mentioning Carl Perkins in July 1954 is not substantiated anywhere except a link on Wikipedia pointing to a DVD that, at least from what I have available, has no mention of the incident at all, it all seems a little far fetched.
Of course, as always, I'm open to the idea that it's true if the information can be verified, and I am always on the lookout for anything new regarding Elvis Presley, but at this time I'm definitely struggling to consider any of it fact. However, on a positive note, thanks to the great discussions on the Elvis Talk Page I have learnt a lot about rockabilly and Carl Perkins that I did not know before, and that can only be a good thing. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you were able to see the DVD again, Steve, and enjoy a young Elvis once more. This second DVD you speak of, "done on the Elvis Presley album", what is that? Is it Classic Albums - Elvis Presley? If so, I have that also and can have a quick look to see if I can hear what you're hearing. I'm aware of the audio you are speaking of, with Sam Phillips talking about it being a pop record, but the recording I have on CD of that moment (King of Rock 'n' Roll: The 50s Masters box set) fades out with them all laughing. You are correct in noting that it is from the recording of Blue Moon of Kentucky in 1954, not Mystery Train in 1955. The chances of Sam Phillips repeating the exact same thing again are unlikely.
This is just a theory, but it sounds to me like the sound editor for the documentary has taken audio clips from two separate times and mixed them as one. This, unfortunately, is a very common practice on Elvis CDs and documentaries. Anyone who has seen This is Elvis will know this for sure. If the sound editor has taken the sound of Sam Phillips from 1954 after Blue Moon of Kentucky, and mixed it with another audio clip of Elvis mentioning Carl Perkins at the recording of Mystery Train, then it would explain why it sounds like it does. Elvis recorded Mystery Train in the summer of 1955, after he'd met Carl Perkins, so it would explain how he knew the name then. An alternative theory is that Elvis doesn't actually say "Carl Perkins", but maybe something that could easily be mistaken for Carl Perkins. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Steve, I've just listened to the clip and I can tell straight away that it's two different clips. First of all, the audio of the first one (where they are laughing) fades out (as on the CD version), and secondly the microphone quality is clearly different. The second part where Elvis mentions Perkins is obviously from a different microphone and different time, and it's very clear when you listen to it. You can actually hear the background hiss of the room ambience changing as the audio fades into the second clip. I'd be quite happy to believe that the second audio clip is from the recording session for Blue Suede Shoes, considering the album they are discussing in the documentary.

As I said before, it's not at all uncommon for documentary makers and CD compilers to mix different audio clips into one and it can be very confusing sometimes. If you listen to the audio you can clearly hear it's from two different sources. I can understand how you think you've heard Elvis mention Perkins during the recording of Blue Moon of Kentucky, but I think it's very obvious that the clips are completely different. If you listen to it through headphones you will definitely hear the change. What Elvis says during the second part is the following... "I don't know what we're gonna do with Carl Perkins". Once again another problem is sorted out and we can move on to dealing with other issues. Thanks for bringing this clip to my attention so that I could put my own mind at rest about the situation. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an alternative source including the quote concerning Perkins: Jean-Pierre Hombach, Elvis Presley: The King of Rock 'n' Roll, p.74. This means that Elvis's remark, "That sounds like Carl Perkins", should not have been removed from the Blue Moon of Kentucky article. Onefortyone (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
141, did you actually read the source you've just posted? It's an exact copy of the Wikipedia article Blue Moon of Kentucky, word for word, with the exact same sources and even the Reference numbers still included in the text. Clearly this "author" has just copy/pasted the whole article, hence the reason that the wrong quote is included. This has happened all over the internet, hence why you find multiple pages copied from Wikipedia if you search for "That sounds like Carl Perkins". This is how false information gets spread, and how authors in the future will mess up the whole story. Plus, have you even bothered to read the discussion between Steve and I about this matter? Elvis doesn't say "That sounds like Carl Perkins". Listen to the source, it's not the same recording session. It's absolutely clear when you listen to it. I can understand why Steve was mistaken, it does sound convincing, but as I've explained above regarding the recording, you can hear the audio fade out and then a new audio source fade in. The change in room ambience is crystal clear.
Steve, in regards to your comments on my talk page, it's an interesting theory but I disagree about the idea that Elvis just stepped closer to the microphone. That doesn't explain the fade out of the laughter (exactly at the same point as the CD) or the sudden room hiss changing to the other recording. It also doesn't explain the quality of the voices changing. Compare the audio of Sam Phillips with that of Elvis and it's even more obvious that they are separate recordings. Not only were they separate recordings, they were separate microphones. With regards to your comments on 141's page about Elvis stepping into the microphone to address Phillips, Elvis had no reason to step into the microphone, Sam Phillips was in the room with him at the time. It's easy to mistake it for the same recording because of the way they've edited it, but I don't understand how anyone could listen to it closely and still think it was the same recording. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The audio of Elvis mentioning Carl Perkins is from an attempted recording of When It Rains, It Really Pours in November 1955 (Elvis Day by Day, Jorgensen & Guralnick, p.53). He would later record it officially for RCA in 1957. The audio is here in its entirety... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwI5ujEp3u8&feature=youtu.be

From 1 minute 28 you can hear Elvis clearly, "I don't know what we're gonna do with Carl Perkins". A few seconds later he says "I don't know what we're gonna do with Perkins over there". Perkins was in the studio at the time of the recording, a very common practice amongst Sun recording artists in those days, just hanging around. In fact, it's very likely that Perkins actually records a guitar part on this audio. Perkins and Elvis performed together a little while later at Ellis Auditorium in Memphis on November 13, 1955 (Elvis Day by Day, Jorgensen & Guralnick, p.53). Now that we have all the pieces and they fit together nicely, we can put this part of the puzzle back in the box. It's working together like this, putting forward all the different theories and sources that we all have into one pot, that helps improve these articles immensely. Discussing the opposite viewpoints regarding this matter has helped us find the truth. Not only could all this information be used to clarify our current situation, but it's now also available to help improve the article about the song When It Rains, It Really Pours. Nice job, folks. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I still see a problem here. You never know for sure if your personal interpretation of the said audios is right. Even if it is, according to Wikipedia policies you need a published written source that supports your claims. Onefortyone (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
For what reason? I'm not attempting to put any material into any articles, so why do I need a source? All I've done is provide the evidence for Steve to see that his original thoughts on the matter were incorrect. These aren't my "personal interpretations", I've provided plenty of evidence above, including sources and audio of the events. Like I said in my last edit summary, "Job done". Are you seriously still going to press the matter, 141? Even for you that is seriously over the top. lol ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
There is still the fact that another author has accepted Steve's view and published it in a book, and this is what counts on Wikipedia, not our personal knowledge or beliefs. Onefortyone (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you actually read anything people say, do you 141? Where is this other book by this other author? If it's the one you've already posted above, then I advise you read my reaction to it and Steve's reaction to it before you reply to this again. Plus, authors can be, and in this care ARE wrong. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You still do not see the problem here, ElvisFan. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may be right with your analysis above, but what counts on Wikipedia is a published source supporting your claims, and there is only a published source citing Steve's original view. This means that the author of this source may be cited in the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Geez, you two. This has been sort of entertaining, but, how about taking this somewhere else? 141, I won't be using my original interpretation of what I heard on that dvd because ElvisFan's evidence that I got it wrong is persuasive that I will drop it. Now, the whole issue of "originator" is something else and should be pursued on the Elvis talk page. Thanks to both of you, ElvisFan in particular. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of "originator", here is another interesting source: in his book, The Encyclopedia of Rock Obituaries (1999), Nick Talevski writes, "Elvis was not the originator of rock'n'roll, nor the first to release a rock'n'roll record, but he was its first real star..." Onefortyone (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Figured I would take a bit of time off from this, because, other than being corrected on the quote, all that is coming back from ElvisFan, DocKeno, and Jay is, basically, there are lots of sources that say he is. I once wrote that I MIGHT sum up, but there is other info. We'll see. Hey, list that one on the talk page now that you have it written up! Steve Pastor (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hound Dog - Betsy Gay[edit]

I never got to ask Jerry Leiber what he thought of the Betsy Gay record, and I haven't yet asked Mike Stoller. My guess is that Jerry wouldn't have liked it nearly as much as Big Mama Thornton's original (which he and Mike have long regarded as a virtually perfect record), but he would certainly have preferred it to Presley's, as Gay's version preserve's the text and intent of the lyric. Mike might not hear much of the music he wrote in Gay's arrangement, but certainly no less than in Presley's frenetic take. Personally, I like the Gay record; I think it's a standout amongst the post-Thornton, pre-Presley versions. This is not least because it adheres to the intended female perspective. The only other pre-1956 version to do that (so far as I know) was Little Esther's 1953 recording, which was truer to the original in that it's an R&B record—and arguably less interesting for the same reason. Pstoller (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Coast Swing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A String of Pearls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Elvis Presley and citation style[edit]

Hi Steve, please make sure when you add material to an article (especially a Featured Article), as you did here, that you follow the existing citation style in the article. I fixed it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Basic habanera rhythm, Roberts 1998 50.jpeg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dachau concentration camp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Elvis Presley - Ed Sullivan Shows dvd
  2. ^ Clayton and Heard, pp.117-8
  3. ^ Elvis Presley - Ed Sullivan Shows dvd