User talk:Kohoutek1138

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

I always get a very god feeling[edit]

when I see you editing The Byrds. Thanks. Okay. I am doing a radio show that is a "simulated" acid trip, using the Moody Blues In Search of the Lost Chord as a starting point and sticking other songs in between each of their cuts. Several songs between each cut. Can you offer a better song or two from the Byrds (or anywhere else) than 5D? Just wondering. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have all the Byrds (probably vinyl and CD up to Byrd Brothers, but don't have it. Since I don't use any music but things I have, or discover at KLDK, I might not be able to track down some of your thoughts. Perhaps it is time to get the Byrd Brothers? Food for thought. I appreciate your taking the time out from your Byrds editing to do a little Byrds consulting. Life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Gene Clark[edit]

Hello, I have an interest in knowledge in music and use Wiki musician bios. I looked up Gene Clark and saw that most of his bio had been removed. I joined Wikipedia and began to prepare new content and citations, but before I figured out how to add them the old Gene Clark biography was replaced. It appears that you are working on it and doing a great job. I saw the note that it needed citations and I believe that I can help. I have a lot of information on Gene Clark (and other Byrds related members and the bands they were in) but I don't want to start adding my citations if you are in the process of doing so. Do you mind if I start? This will be my first Wiki contribution, and I am using Wiki Referencing for Beginners, so I will probably start with the easy citations from biographies first, then tackle more complex ones. Thanks!Mudpuppie (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Mudpuppie (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for you very helpful advice. Adding citations is a good way for me to begin contributing to Wiki. I added some citations last night and will add more tonight. I am using books at the moment because I am on vacation and only have biographies with me. I do have two file drawers of other source material at home. I will also review online sources and when I return I will revise my citations by replacing some with other reliable sources. I simply felt a need to add citations before someone deletes the entry again! I know that you wrote the articles from your own source materials, so I am sure that you may also want to change some of my citations.

One Question: None of Gene Clark's albums with the New Christy Minstrels or Byrds are included in his discography. I know that Wiki users often check entries to find out which albums former group members participated on, and I noticed that there is no consistency with how Wiki handles this matter. For example, the discographies of Chris Hillman and Michael Clarke include the group albums they participated, while those of Gene and Roger do not. I think it is more helpful when they are listed but I am unsure of Wiki policy. I think listed them for Gene Clark would be helpful to clear confusion about his participation on recordings with these groups and I am willing to add them. I have reliable material supporting Gene's participation on two NCM albums(Land of the Giants and Today)and the hit singles "Today" and "Saturday Night". There is dispute over whether he sang on the Christmas album that he graces the cover of, so I would not include it. I believe there is reason to list Gene's Byrds albums because biographical articles often erroneously state that he participated on only the first two albums, ignoring his contribution to Fifth Dimension, including being the primary composer of "Eight Miles High".

I noticed that the entry for Dillard & Clark is a stub, so I will add it to my "To Do" list. I would also like to write brief entries for Gene Clark's later collaborators, Carla Olson and her former group, the Textones, as they released albums that were highly regarded by critics and sold well.Mudpuppie (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


You deleted a piece of copy concerning the above - you point is taken -but wouldn't it have been better (and in the spirit of Wikipedia) to have request a citation concerning the facts? I was about to add this information. Shoot first ask questions afterwards? Long Ben Every (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Younger Than Yesterday[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Younger Than Yesterday you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Younger Than Yesterday[edit]

The article Younger Than Yesterday you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Younger Than Yesterday for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you --and a Quarter Million Award![edit]

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
For your contributions to bring Younger Than Yesterday to Good Article status. Thanks for all your great work in this area, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at your user page, we actually owe you even more bling than that.
Million award logo.svg The Quarter Million Award
For your contributions to bring The Byrds (estimated annual readership: 380,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
Million award logo.svg This user won the Quarter Million Award for bringing The Byrds to Good Article status.
Have you thought about taking on the David Crosby article at some point? It looks like that would easily qualify for another one of these. Again, thanks for helping so many readers with your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for the barnstar and half-million award. That's very kind of you. Yes, I have thought of tackling the David Crosby page at some point, although I'm currently working (slowly) to bring the Clarence White page up to GA standard, but after that I may move on to the Crosby article. There's a few other Byrds' album articles that I've worked on that are now within spitting distance of GA standard too, so they might be nominated for GA review after just a litle more work. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Very cool--good luck, Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Younger Than Yesterday[edit]

The article Younger Than Yesterday you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Younger Than Yesterday for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Reversion of Ballad_of_Easy_Rider[edit]

reverted change by Kohoutek1138 23 Jan 2014 - Unsourced indeed. Anyone with ears listening to the Fairport Convention cover will know that its in three time. I'm not going to change it again, but perhaps you need to review (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, get up off your lazy arse and actually find a reliable source to support the information that you want to add to the article. Maybe you should read WP:BOP#Burden_of_evidence. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Byrds McGuinn White Parsons Battin.JPG[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you were aware of my absence[edit]

After 10 months in the hospital, I am back, albeit slowly right for the next couple of weeks, but I'm staying in my father's home until I'm more stabilized and everything in my body doesn't hurt just from standing or sitting! So much has changed since I've been gone; rules that relate to what I do, so I'm going to have plenty of questions. Happy to be home though. Missed you and a few more here. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Roger McGuinn vs. Jim McGuin[edit]

It confused me the first time I read it. (But I went straight to the info box: Who the heck's Jim McGuinn? Roger's brother?) And how do you account for the info box referring to "Jim McGuinn" in the photo of the Byrds, taken when he was already going by "Roger," but "Roger McGuinn" under "past members." Looks confusing enough to me to warrant clarification.

From his debut with the Byrds (when I was 10 years old--I witnessed their first network TV appearance), McGuinn has always been known as "Roger" to fans, band mates, collaborators, the media and his record labels (and of course friends he would make after becoming "Roger").

I'm certainly not going to engage in an editing war, but my suggestion would be to use "Roger McGuinn (formerly known as Jim McGuin)" in the intro, which I would argue is more accurate than "a.k.a.," but refer to him simply as "McGuin" (w/o link) thereafter, as is the custom in Wikipedia as it is just about everywhere. (If maintaining "a.k.a.," you may want add a Wiktionary link for readers not entirely fluent in English and its many abbreviations. The periods, btw, are extraneous.)

Oh, and change "Jim" to Roger" under the Bryds photo in the info box; consistency is very important.

Cheers !!, Rico

Hi Rico! McGuinn was publicly and privately known as Jim McGuinn from childhood until late 1967 (he was born James Joseph McGuinn). He changed his given name to Roger at that point, as a result of his indoctrination into the Subud religion, although his real name was actually only legally changed to James Roger McGuinn. In the Byrds article, as with other Byrds-related pages on Wikipedia, McGuinn's name is either Jim or Roger, depending on which given name he was using at the time in question. So, for example, he is referred to as Jim McGuinn in the article for the album Younger Than Yesterday (early 1967), but as Roger in the article for Sweetheart of the Rodeo (late 1968).
In the main Byrds' article, the Roger/Jim thing is addressed early on in the article lead, but since McGuinn was going by the name of Jim in 1965, when the photo in the infobox was taken, he is listed as Jim McGuinn there, because that was his name at that time. Similarly, he is "Roger McGuinn" under the "past members" section because that is his current name.
I'm sorry to have to say that you are wrong in your assertion that "from his debut with the Byrds, McGuinn has always been known as "Roger" to fans, band mates, collaborators, the media and his record labels." That is simply incorrect. He was known as Jim McGuinn to his parents, on album sleeves, to his band mates, in songwriting credits and in the media up until at least late 1967 (in truth, many media outlets continued to call him Jim into 1968, after his name change). There was even a silly rumour in the late 1960s that Jim McGuinn had emigrated to Rio and had been replaced by his identical twin brother, Roger! McGuinn himself later poked fun at this rumour with the title of his 1991 solo album Back from Rio. :)
However, I do take your point about changing the "a.k.a." to something like "Roger McGuinn (formerly known as Jim McGuinn)" for non-native English speakers and so, I will do that now. But in the article itself, he is referred to as Jim up until his name change is mentioned (in paragraph number 10 of the "Psychedelia (1965–1967)" section) for factual accuracy. I take your point about consistency, but not if it compromises accuracy, which it would in this case.
Hope that explains things a bit better for you. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes... Nicely done. :)
(I have some sources dating his name change to 1965, just before "Mr. Tambourine Man" was released, but after reviewing other material I no longer trust them. So, my mistake there...)
But calling him "Roger" under "past members" in the info box makes no sense to me. I changed it to Jim for consistency. (How could he be known as "Roger" in the past if he's "Jim" now?) At least the box is consistent, and if anyone wonders who Jim is, it's explained in the intro.
I also tightened up "(who was initially known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)" to simply "(known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)."
Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for this late response, been tied up with Xmas stuff. Actually, your sources are correct insofar as McGuinn's indoctrination into Subud did occur in January 1965, but the name change didn't happen until mid-1967. I guess he wanted to make sure he was serious about his dedication to the religion before taking the plunge and changing his name. :)
However, I've changed his name back to Roger in the past members. This is because, as a past member, he has used the name Roger for the last 48 years and still does. Even during his time with the Byrds, he was known as Roger for the last 6 years of his time with that band.
Good idea about tightening up "(who was initially known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)" to "(known as Jim McGuinn until mid-1967)" though. It scans much better that way. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to you![edit]

I cannot thank you enough for your work on some of my favorite psychedelic artists. I, too, have been working on psychedelic band's/artists of the 1960s. I' am especially proud of my work on The Litter and The Merry-Go-Round. I am not sure if you heard of them but I am sure an intellectual like you will give them a look. Anyways, keep up your amazing work for the artists that deserve it most! Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGracefulSlick (talkcontribs) 00:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kohoutek1138. You have new messages at EditorE's talk page.
Message added 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Richie Havens Mixed Bag. On the album liner notes it is listed a open E tuning. In the citation listed on the wikipedia page for mixed bag it also states open E tuning. Why does this keep reverting to open D tuning as I can find no citation for this other than this wiki article. Refer to the original album liner notes. I can provide a picture if needed... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paullococo (talkcontribs) 18:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Glory, Glory[edit]

Hi, I know of your amazing work on articles about The Byrds, and I was wondering if you want to work on their single, Glory, Glory (Lay My Burden Down). It's just a request so I'll understand if you have more important things to focus on, it is just a song I favored from the band that I noticed had little info. TheGracefulSlick ( talk March 17, 2015 19:55

Songs in Five and Original Research[edit]

Hi Kahoutek: we have a disagreement about what classifies as "original research" (re: "Grim Reaper of Love" page). For me, the fact that a song (e.g., "Take 5") can be described as being in 5 is a perceptual, musical fact, not research. It is like saying that the "White House" is white; I don't think that needs a reference. You apparently disagree, so we'll have to work it out (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'll have to learn the arbitration rules, but I feel pretty strongly about this.). Finney1234 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A further analogy: in the Wikipedia writeup for Casablanca (film), the plot is summarized without providing any references (presumably, the writer watched the film and described what he saw). Is that "original research" that needs to be flagged? (BTW, I realize that there is a real issue here, and I was probably too quick in simply reversing your change rather than raising the issues with you first). Finney1234 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kahoutek: thanks for your polite and well stated response on my talk page. Perhaps we could keep everything on your page so there's a record of the give and take? I have a few issues, which I will raise separately over the next day or two. The issue here isn't just this minor "Grim Reaper of Love" article, but you're clearly a significant contributor to Wikipedia, who has a very strong bias towards a particularly detailed type of attribution which is not necessarily common or standard for Wikipedia. I'd like to hope there's a reasonable middle ground for music articles (I can see there's a slippery slope, and I don't want to see Wikipedia articles lose their verifiability either).

As far as giving references for the dates for songs such as the Beatles "Within You Without You", my reading of the Wikipedia "No Original Research section" is that that actually isn't necessary. "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed.[1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". In this case, the dates probably did come from Wikipedia, but I have no reason to believe they're inaccurate, and the other articles do provide those sources. Adding references every 3 words for non-challenged facts seems to sacrifice readability for the sake of providing a non-required reference. Comments?

Also, why did you not remove my statement that this was "raga rock"? That was completely a personal interpretation, sans reference. The fact that I went from the referenced fact (from the reasonably HQ CD liner notes) that the song used an electric sitar to calling it "raga rock" seems like original research. What makes this acceptable?

Also: lets say that all the songs have been given dates, and we're both happy with the attributions for those dates. Would you object to saying "A preceded B and C", since it's obvious from the dates, or would you insist that still requires a reference?

The bigger issue is whether saying a song is in a 5/8 rhythm is a "fact" (the NOR article states that "Paris is in France" does not require a reference) or "Original Research", which I will take up later (I need to look at the "Burden of Proof" article first).

Thanks Finney1234 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)