User talk:Mick gold

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

User talk:Mick gold/Archive 1 User talk:Mick gold/Archive 2

Barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of High Culture.png The Barnstar of High Culture
For your diligent, valiant and patient efforts on Bob Dylan, which saved it from delisting it as an FA! plange 03:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, Mick! I'm not sure what you have in mind in terms of supporting Olaf as a reference, but I can't think of any more accurate or thorough a source on the issues he's researched. For example, in building a Dylan timeline, I found only a small handful of dates that he doesn't have, and I spent at least a year searching high and low. Meanwhile, I haven't found any sources that contradict him on major issues, just a couple quibbles. Also, Olaf is an important figure in Dylanology. Using him as a source (he's not at all part of the story, like Weberman) leads others to his door. BTW, I haven't abandoned my suggestions regarding the Dylan article. I fully intend to return, as soon as I wrap up a couple commitments on the local (eastern Pa.) pages I've been contributing to. See you soon. And keep up the good work. Allreet (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shall do on backing you up. I took a look at the FAR page, only very briefly and I haven't had a chance to look back at the article itself, so I don't have much feedback on the dialogue at the moment. I did try the link one of the editors included, the one that connects to Olof's home page, which does look like a fan site. More useful (and impressive), I think, would be Olof Björner's Bob Dylan Yearly Chronicles. If I'm missing something in the thread, however, ignore this comment. The overall point is that someone who's published 11 volumes-plus on a subject that are available on Amazon is clearly an authority, not just an ardent fan. No need to respond, just let me know when you post your position.Allreet (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in awe. That's taking the role of editor beyond what I ever expected to see. Outstanding! I finally had a chance to pore over the FAR and was also impressed by your responses and restraint. I then looked through the Swede's site (nobody that he is) and found even more material than I knew was available. Obviously, this discussion would never have taken place if the books had been cited instead of the website, but then readers would have been denied what Bjorner has so generously made available. Maybe the link ought to go directly to the Yearly Chronicles page to satisfy the little old lady at the foundation, but I must say there's a certain charm to Olof's home page – which is to say, does information have to be slickly packaged to be deemed reliable? Anyway, I hope this puts the issue to rest. If you don't mind, I plan to email some comments to you regarding the article and to volunteer to help wherever I can. That may take a few days. In the meantime, I intend to add a one-liner or so to the FAR to second the expert opinions. Allreet (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shelton's book[edit]

Hi Mick gold, how are you doing? My No Direction Home is the 1987 Ballantine paperback edition. I guess I should have checked mine was the same edition before adding that page number. Anyway, yes, it is in the "Heresy Toward Dogma?" section. So, yes、by all means, why don't you go with your edition's page number if you haven't already.

In the last few weeks, I have really enjoyed seeing the team effort as everyone has come together to try to pass this FAR. I'm sure we will, but I think surely this article has become even better, more concise, better referenced, more consistent, by having gone through the FAR process, so that is good. (Too bad if we end up having to lose Bjorner, though.) Have a good day! Moisejp (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

More Dylan[edit]

Hi Mick, no problem at all. I was fully expecting when I made all those edits that some of them were going to be edited back or partially edited back, which is fine. I figured, what the heck, I'd try to cut the 2000s section down a bit, and see which changes you and others were happy with. For the No Direction Home years, yes, I think maybe we were editing that same bit at the same time and you may have had to change back my edit twice - sorry about that. I meant to write "focused on the years 1961 to 1966" not "1961 and 1966." But I am happy to keep the bookends about arriving in NYC and the motorcycle accident. I also agree we don't want the article just dates, and I guess we just have to find the right balance of how much additional info to include without including too much. Anyhow, cool, it's a pleasure to collaborate with you. If I make any further trims you're not happy with, don't feel at all bad about reverting them, because I really don't mind. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your note, like Moisejp, I appreciate your asking and also enjoy the collaborative process. Revert away as needed. As for the sentence on the first sanctioned re-mix, the edit is a hard to explain because it's a style/better writing issue. But I'll try. "This" at the beginning of a sentence connects with the previous thought, but a more specific reference such as a synonym or additional fact would more naturally carry it along. Instead, "this" tends to punctuate the statement as the writer's observation rather than one of plain fact (what I referred to as "self-conscious"). However, in trying not to change anything else, I created a construction problem, whereas the construction you restored is better. A good example, one where I think I satisfied the problem, was the later reference to Gray's "price gouging" remark, which originally started with "this." Referencing fact at the beginning of the sentence, in my opinion, gives it more substance/natural weight and avoids causing the reader to pause. The same sort of solution is called for here, but it may take a more extensive re-write, as the Gray sentence did. Allreet (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mick, thanks for your lovely note. I agree that the article has been greatly improved through FAR - it's funny how much cruft can accumulate without you noticing until you actually have to actively weed it out - and i hope that the new legacy section has assuaged any fears you might have had about the article losing perspective on dylan's importance musically and culturally; so in addition to the punctuation, referencing etc. an all round success I would say. As far as Bjorner, i'm in two minds as a) it's obviously a great and authoritative source on dylan but b) even if we get it through the FARC, most likely some other editor will come along in 2 moths or 6 months or a year or whatever, and question it - so i'm personally of the belief that if we have another source with the same info, we should use that one to save us all infinitely recurrent ballache, and keep Bjorner as an external link. However, you clearly have access to many more dylan books than I, so ultimataly i'll leave that to your discretion - but if I do happen to come across alternate sources how would you suggest I proceed? If you're happy to periodically argue the legitimacy of Bjorner I'm also happy to let them stay if it's consensus. As for any other problems we might face - some editors will obviously still make an issue of the length, but i believe we've made the article much more focused, and we'll have to hope the consensus is that the subject warrants the attention (your comparison to the size of Ronald Reagan is an excellent point in our favour I feel), and that it doesn't lose its focus through its length. I'll read through it again now and see if there is anything else I can see.

OT: Yes, everything is great here in Vienna as normal, although we've just had an extremely disastrous election which has made me infinitely distrustful of about 1 of every 3 people I meet. Where exactly did your parents come from in Vienna, do you know? Would it be possible for me to gain access to any of your documentaries would you say? As always, it's a great pleasure collaborating with you and you're doing a marvelous job on Bob Dylan and your dedication would be the envy of any wikipedia editor. peace :) Warchef (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

FAR Further Comment[edit]

You, Moisejp, Warchef and others are doing a great job in honing the Dylan article. The rough edges and extraneous detail are all but gone, and it reads quite well. Though I haven't seen the article from when FA was originally awarded (I'll look it up), I can't imagine how the designation could be lifted with all the improvements that have been made. Kudos! Two items that I believe need attention, one longer term and the other soon. As I noted previously, Dylan's first year was pivotal, and a lot is glossed over between his arrival and the Shelton article. Otherwise, it's as if he arrived, played some clubs, and got signed, which hardly does the story justice biographically. That should not be of concern for FAR, but to let you know, I've scoured Sounes, Heylin and Gray for detail and will be looking at other sources to add information on Feb-Oct '61. That's longer term. The short-term item is the statement on Baez and Dylan performing at rallies. As far as I know, the March on Washington was their only rally together, and the Mississippi Voter Rally with Seeger was the only other demonstration he attended post-1961. I don't disagree he was prominent, but that's more because of his songs than what he actually did. To that I'll add: If this is the weakest link 1960-70 (and I believe it is), things are in good shape for this formative period. Allreet (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Descent[edit]

Do you think there might be a COI problem if I cite the doc. If its a problem, let me know or send an email. Otherwise I'm poncing about with the article while getting up to speed on the sources, but I'd very much like to have you on board if its given a push, seeing as how you wrote it. O and merry christmas. Best, Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I might tap you for sources as I go, and no worries about being preoccupied, its great to see the work ye are doing on Dylan. As much as anything I just wanted to let you know what I was up to, given you are the main author. I'm doing general bits on van der Wyeden at the moment, but want to focus specifically on the Descent in a few weeks time. The doc gives a very good framework for structuring an expansion. O and thanks for the spelling catch, though I agree the current heading title isn't adequate. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Main page appearance[edit]

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


No probs - looks fine - Jonathon Sedgwick's allegation was pretty flaky and I wasn't sure whether to include it or not. Congrats on getting featured article - great work. Dunks (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group[edit]

Hi Loremaster, did you simply click the "undo" button after I attempted to improve the prose of this article? I had thought that some of my edits improved the style, and included a web ref to a Seattle Times discussion of Estulin's claims which you have deleted. I have no wish to engage in an edit war if you have feeling of ownership of this page. My interest in Bilderberg was triggered by Jon Ronson's documentaries. best Mick gold 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution. However, you are missing the point of this paragraph. The intent isn't to mention that Estulin has gotten some publicity in the mainstream press since there are other conspiracy theorists (such as Alex Jones) we could have singled out for that distinction. The intent is to highlight 1) the fact that the Bilderberg group and conspiracy theories about its real purpose were featured in international news because of the visit of Estulin to Cuba on 26 August; and 2) how Marxists are concerned about the effect it might have on socialist and progressive movements around the world. However, the Seattle Times blog post will be a useful source in a different paragraph. So thank you. --Loremaster (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Blind Willie McTell[edit]

I thought that text would be questioned... nice to meet you by the way.. Anyhow, there's a good documentary with Mick Taylor carrying on a running conversation I found some time ago on You Tube, which is cut into 5 parts. In part 4 of 5, Taylor discusses the work he did with Bob Dylan, beginning with Infidels. I think watching all the parts are really interesting, but regarding Dylan, in part four: [1] Taylor talks about Dylan being the most gracious musician (not exact quote, but pretty much like it) that he ever worked with, and discusses Dylan's prolific songwriting abilities, stating that Dylan wrote the song "Blind Willie McTell" in the studio, and Taylor decided then to put it on his album. He isn't specific about the album name, though. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and sorry I didn't notice your answer sooner- sometimes when I get more than one response, I don't notice the earlier ones. Nice to see that you found it! The whole Mick Taylor interview -(all the clips) are actually interesting. Would it be too much for you to leave a note on Talk:Mick Taylor so when somebody gets around to adding that album to Taylor's (and other people's) discography, that printed reference will be available? It would be much appreciated, I'm sure! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Mick. Sure, I'm all for nominating it. I have made a few more edits and think it is in good shape. I've alerted Riendog, Allreet and I.M.S. as they were involved in the collaboration and will wait a couple of days to see if any of them say they don't want to be co-nominators before making the nomination. BTW, while I have your attention, there is also a matter I have brought up on the LARS talk page about a non-free photo that someone has added that maybe should be deleted. If you have time please check that discussion, too. Talk to you soon! Moisejp (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Desolation Row[edit]

Good work on Desolation Row. I’d like to improve the overall impression of the article but am wary of writing original research. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence and/or interpretations of odd lines and characters in the lyrics but I always felt Dylan was primarily writing about people and situations he personally knew, using an idiosyncratic code to conceal their identities (especially when he was singing about himself). The last stanza is key: “These people that you mention […] I had to rearrange their faces and give them all another name”. I wondered if you knew of any sources that might confirm this without opening up a can of wild speculation. I neither know nor care whether the heart attack machine is Andy Warhol’s camera or whether Edie stayed in a hotel named The Castle etc, I just figured this compositional angle was more significant than the individual references. I remember reading Heylin saying somewhere that Dylan admitted he was Casanova but have never been able to source it and you seem pretty clued up.Silverwood (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles on Dylan songs and associates[edit]

Thanks for moving Jean Ritchie out of the lede in Masters of War. I had originally cleaned up this issue, along with the Recordings/Performances section, but left everything for another day. Then, last night, while looking for something else, I became sidetracked with the Covers/Other sections, which are now sourced. More info is needed on the song, however, both biographical and interpretive.

On other fronts, I've been taking cracks and large whacks at articles on songs and associates. I've added an article on Farewell and Gil Turner, cleaned up and expanded Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues and Bob Dylan's Dream, and am now in the process of "completing" Paul Clayton, which started as basically a stub. Turner still needs work (stalled a bit based on sources), as does Clayton, though I have plenty to go on there. I also ventured on side trips by starting an article on the Phil Ochs: There but for Fortune documentary and The Best of Bob Dylan's Theme Time Radio Hour series (basically, just a songlist at this point, though I the editorial content pretty much mapped out).

I'd appreciate your taking a look at your leisure, of course. Edits or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. On Clayton, I plan to add a section on his career in the Village, re-do the original palagiarism and Dylan relationship sections, add a section on his demise to replace the abrupt Suicide section, and address his legacy regarding contributions to folklore and the folk revival. I forget specifically what's left undone for Turner, but it follows lines similar to Clayton's. BTW, the Bob Coltman book Paul Clayton and the Folksong Revival on Google Books was a blessed find. While the preview leaves out some crucial parts, including just about everything on Dylan, I can get most of what's missing elsewhere. Allreet (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Highway 61 Revisited[edit]

The article Highway 61 Revisited 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 seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Highway 61 Revisited for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


Hi Mick. How are you doing? I hope all is well for you and your loved ones. All is well here.

I have been working on an article for Santa-Fe (Bob Dylan song). It is still somewhat rough but I ma going to polish it after I have added more info. In the Background section, I'd really like to add the story told here in this [unfortunately can't be considered reliable source--it's just a one-man fan site] (mostly in the last paragraph of "Introduction") about how there were three waves of Basement Tapes that found their way to the public, and that "Santa-Fe" was in the third of these, from the Garth Hudson archives. The first wave will of course be easy to find sources for, and there is just barely enough info in the liner notes to Bootleg Series 1-3 about the third wave that I think I can work that into the narrative. But do you happen to have any information about the second wave, the so-called Robbie Robertson archives? The link above mentions Heylin's book Bootleg. Do you have it? On Amazon it has the Look Inside feature buy it doesn't give access to what seems to be a key page in the story. I don't want to ask you to dig too deep, but if you happened to remember seeing any such info in any of your books, I'd be really grateful. If you're busy, no worries, there's no hurry. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick. Thanks so much for the info! It's very useful. Actually, today I looked again on Amazon and found there are two editions of the book on there with Look Inside and one of them gives access to all the pages in that story (btw, Heylin also briefly mentions the roadie in the "Lock Your Door" part of Revolution in the Air). That's interesting that in 1986 when that bootleg came out (I'd never heard of that particular one, either, by the way) it didn't take off at all, and the songs only really became famous when The Genuine Basement Tapes came out several years later. I was hoping to piece together some kind of narrative whereby "Santa-Fe," as the only officially released song from the Hudson archives, and the song that announced their existence when the Bootleg Series 1-3 came out, marked some kind of culmination of hungry collectors' hopes over two decades for the appearance of new Basement Tape tracks, but the story in Bootleg! doesn't really support that angle at all. Oh well. I think I can still use some elements of that narrative, depending what other related info I end up finding. BTW, that's funny that that guy on the Genuine Basement Tapes website misread Bootleg! so greatly. I guess Wikipedia requires reliable sources with good reason! Moisejp (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Mick, thanks for your messages, and for the edits to "Santa Fe". By the way, I am in the Tokyo area, and the effects of the earthquake were not too serious here. We were out of power for several hours. The trains stopped and lots of people had to walk a long way home but by chance I had taken the day off work so I was lucky. Much luckier than people in some other areas of the country who suffered major damage. Thanks a lot for your concern.
I think your changes to "Santa-Fe" were good. I tweaked them and added more info based on ideas from Allreet. If you have time to have another peek to see if I didn't word anything too unelegently, etc., that'd be great. Overall I'm quite happy with the article with all our changes. BTW, is there enough info out there to make a mini-article about Bjorner? If we could include instances where he has been cited, and then wiki-link him whenever we refer to him, this might go a long way to satisfying those not sure of his reliability. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dylan - relocation to NYC[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit (I'd made on 26 Feb, reverted 28 Feb), which I'm not complaining about...just wanted to say I've certainly read Dylan hitched to NYC, thought I'd read it in Scaduto's book first, but I confess I don't have the book in front of me. I do know the subject of hitching to NYC was brought up in an interview in the Christian Science Monitor in the '80s (I believe it was '86)...Perhaps Robert Shelton's book is where I'd first read about Dylan hitching...Have you never come across a ref that states Dylan hitched to NYC (to see Woody Guthrie)?...thanks...and thanks for your hard work on Dylan and related articles!Gobledeegooke (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the reply on my talk page!Gobledeegooke (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Craig Raine on anti-Semitism in Eliot's work[edit]

Craig Raine is infamous as one of the few defenders of changes that Eliot's work contains anti-Semitism. Though I didn't add Raine's controversial comments to the article, I did try to point out the speciousness of his argument. But if the article simply presents the Raine comments w/o commentary it gives the impression that his viewpoint has credibility and is respected by the academic community (which it is not). Perhaps the quote should simply be removed. I think it's rather insulting to the intelligence of the Wikipedia community to give Raine's comments legitimacy. Jpcohen (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Blonde on Blonde[edit]

Hi, Mick! Great to hear from you. Busy is good, especially when the bills come due. I've been away from BoB for a few weeks, but plan to get back soon. My wife and I are currently in Nova Scotia vacationing, and by sheer chance I happened to log on to find the message you sent today. My perspective is that the Background section seems to go over a lot of ground covered elsewhere and could be more relevant. My understanding is that Dylan returned to the studio to cut a single, recorded a bunch of unsuccessful takes save one, headed off to Nashville with a headful of ideas but few songs, then composed everything in his hotel and in the studio. Newport, Forest Hills and so forth were somewhat irrelevant by this point. My plan, then, would be to rewrite Background, clean up New York and Nashville Sessions, finish the song synopses, and add a Criticism section that summarizes what folks like Williams, Heylin, Gray, et al have to say and bring out the album's significance. There should also be an Aftermath that mentions BoB as having completed his rock "triology" and marked the start of a string of albums recorded in Nashville. Anyway, that's where I left my thoughts a few weeks ago. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. I'll be in touch when I get back home by the end of the week. Take care. Allreet (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick! I read your comments. I've realized I am going to be especially busy myself for the next three weeks, but from about Sept. 10 I believe I'll have some time to contribute regularly. If that's around when you'll be free, the two of us, and whoever else is available, can put our heads together and see if we can solve the final issues and try to get it in shape for GA. Even if you're not available then, I'll see what I can do. Talk soon! Moisejp (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Let's get together in September and work towards GA. Best Mick gold (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Mick (I'll cc Moisejp): I've been up to my ears with work and family. I'd love to join in on GA. Over time, I've taken glimpses at BoB and very much like what I've seen. I'd like to re-join in September as well. See you and Moisejp then. Allreet (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Mick. I've just written to Allreet, too. Listen, BoB is surely almost there, but it seems like all the key contributors (including me) have been not focusing too much on it lately. I think, if people have time, if we all gave a final, concerted effort, we could have it ready for GAN in no time. It seems like it has stalled, and it would be nice to reach the goal we set for it, GA. Anyway, let me know what you think. Talk to again soon. Moisejp (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Gill 2011: I do have the more recent edition and wasn't aware of the differences beyond the change in title. Based on your observations, it must have been updated considerably from the original. I'm at work at the moment so I won't be able to look over the refs until I get home. I'll compare everything cited for Gill against the newer edition. Just venturing a guess, but if the 2011 edition can cover both my refs and the others, then it would make sense to update the cites to 2011 and remove the earlier edition from the Bibliography, etc. The alternative, if 2011 doesn't support the earlier material, is to list both editions, which would also be acceptable since they're apparently separate works. I'll let you know what I find. Allreet (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gill ref doesn't belong with the sentence, so I'll remove it. Trager is the sole source. Gill would apply more to the next sentence, regarding Robertson and McCoy, but that's already well covered. On the broader question, the page numbering in Gill 1998 is substantially different from 2011's. However, I was able to match enough refs to be satisfied that the two cover the same ground and one can be dropped. There are a dozen page references for the 1998 edition, so it wouldn't take that much time to convert them, which I'll do over the weekend. I'll let you know if I run into any discrepancies or difficulties. Allreet (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Allreet (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Red on Read[edit]

Hello. You reverted, without any discussion, out of the Bob Dylan article, a "further reading" addition I made of a scholarly book, by Dr. David Yaffe of Syracuse University on Bob Dylan published in 2011 by Yale University Press. ( Yaffe, David, Bob Dylan: Like a Complete Unknown, Yale University Press, 2011. ISBN 9780300124576 ) I've read it. It's s short and accessible tome. It's by a significant academic and published by a top academic publisher and university. It's part of the 'Icons of America' series of Yale University Press. It has been well received by The New York Times Book Review, The Wall Street Journal, Kirkus Reviews, etc. Even Sean Wilentz, Princeton University, and author of Bob Dylan in America has reviewed it as having fresh insights into Dylan. Having read most of the biographies already included, this seemed a nice addition. You labeled my addition in your revert comment as " ... it seems odd & unnecessary to single one out for 'Further Reading' ..." Odd? Unnecessary? Have you read Yaffe's book? It's just out in May 2011. I've been a WP editor since January 2005 and have garnered the respect of most of my fellow editors. I am not in the habit of making unnecessary and odd additions as you opine. I was beginning a "Further Reading" section, not intending to leave only one book in it. I will figure out what to do about this, including undo-ing your revert. The Wikipedia community owns the article, not one gatekeeper or editor, even with your prior comprehensive work on this article. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mick. Thanks for your kind reply. I take your points, agree that a singleton entry "Further Reading" is a curiosity on a FA, that all the academic books on Dylan's 70th can't de facto be included (although one might tend to be an inclusionalist on WP), and somehow this all can be worked out congenially. It's an accessible tome: it's not long and is readable. That's not true of many supra-serious works on anyone. Well, we'll figure out what to do somehow. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick. Thanks for editing in my name in your kindest reply. I'm Bob. ;) Reminds me McGoohan in The Prisoner exclaiming "I am not a number ..." etc. Bests, Ever. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Life (book)[edit]

Hi Mick,, I reverted you as Burroughs is mispelt in the source (Time magazine). Jezhotwells (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, you're right! William "cutup" Burroughs would be amused. Would it be pemitted to wiki link? eg William Boroughs [sic]—because we agree whom Corliss is citing, don't we? Mick gold (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I think wikilinks within quotes are discouraged. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
You seem to give the conventions of WP a higher priority than communicating what Richard Corliss is saying (or attempting to say) about Life. But as primary editor of Life, you are entitled to your principles. Best, Mick gold (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

VoJ article[edit]

Hi Mick. I hope all's well. I've gotten a tiny bit busy again, but it seems like we all are, so I guess if we just keep chipping away at BoB, we'll eventually get there. About "Visions of Johanna", as I mentioned, I do think it's within reach of GA, if you decide you want to pursue that for it at some point. Obviously, the scale is so much smaller than BoB, so "within reach" means a different thing than if we were to say BoB was "within reach". If you wanted you could write some kind of "Legacy"/""Appraisal" section for "VoJ" (you've always been good at that)—the second and third sentences that are presently in the lead would need to go there. What I could do is (a) try to write a proper lead of two paragraphs that summarizes the article; (b) add a sound clip (regardless of whether we decide to use "VoJ" for the BoB article or not); and (c) probably quite easily put together a "Covers" section if we decide we want to add that. After that, I'm sure it would just be very minor tweaking. Anyway, if you don't want to work on this right away, that's fine. You just mentioned you were interested in seeing the article improved more, and those are my ideas for it. Talk again soon, Moisejp (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick. I had another peek at VOJ just now. If you wanted, while we're waiting for the BoB GAR, I think we could finish this one off quite easily. Just now I made a few quick edits. I created a Legacy section and moved two of the sentences in the lead there. If you wanted to flesh out the Legacy section, I could do a Covers section easily. Online there are some (unreliable source) lists of covers of various songs. Then it's just a matter of using that list to track down some reliable sources from Allmusic and bands' official websites and such. Then when we're done Covers and Legacy it's just a matter of writing a couple of paragraphs in the lead which summarizes the article's content, which is easy. I don't think we need to make the article very long or anything. If you look at some of the GA music articles out there (the ones for songs at least), a lot of them are shorter than what you have already. And it probably won't need too much tweaking at the end, because the base you've got there is already strong. Anyway, in the next couple of days I'll try to start a Covers section. Of course, if you don't have time to work on it right now, no worries. It's not something we necessarily have to finish it immediately. I'm just saying whenever we do end up doing it, I think it can be finished quite quickly. All the best, Moisejp (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Mick, do you think the info from the bottom of this [2] page is worth adding to the Covers section of VOJ? I can't decide if it's worthwhile or possibly trivial. It could help us flesh out the Covers section just a bit, and have four sentences instead of three (not that that's a good reason in itself for adding it). Anyway, this is from the Dead's official site, so it's definitely a reliable source. For the record, that source says they played it a "few" times, but this [3] source (unreliable) says they played it at least seven times. Anyway, let me know if you think about if it's worth going anywhere with this. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mick gold. OK, I'll add the Dead info. I think overall we have enough info for GA, I think it just needs a bit of polishing (not too much, but a bit). I was wondering whether the "Described by many critics as one of Dylan's greatest masterpieces" at the beginning of Recording could be fleshed out just a wee bit and moved to the Legacy section. I think that info fits in the Legacy section better than in Recording. The lead probably needs at least a couple more sentences. I'll look into what I can do with that. I also keep wondering whether the Live performance section and the Live recording sections ought to be merged together. I think it's doable if we make a smooth transition between the two. The Legacy section right now seems a bit choppy, but that could probably be fixed with just a bit of smoothing. I think that's about it, then we should be done. I'll try to work on it some more in the next few days. Take care. Moisejp (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed, chunks of the VOJ article are word-for-word the same as the VOJ section of the BoB article. We really should change that (in the VOJ article, I mean). It seems like the BoB FAC is going relatively well so far, although of course someone could throw us a curve ball at any time. Right now I'm trying to go through BoB line by line to make sure we haven't missed any more cases of some of the stuff the reviewers have talked about. I guess I'll get back to that now. Talk again soon, Moisejp (talk) 06:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Also, I was going to say, in VOJ, I wonder whether in the Interpretation section whether Rick's analysis is very useful. I mean, we quote these two lines, and all that we conclude is that there is some degree of anger in the song. I thought maybe it was too specific and wouldn't be meaningful enough, especially for people who aren't especially familiar with the song. But it's not a strong opinion. If you quite want to keep that bit, I don't really mind. Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm also going to try to look at the article some more this week, and try to work on the lead and maybe other things. We're getting there! Moisejp (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Could this Allmusic review be useful for the Interpretation section? [4] For me it sounds more useful than the Ricks quote, but again, I don't have a strong opinion if you want to keep Ricks. Anyway, have a look and see what you think. But on the other hand, I don't think we necessarily need to add any more material. I just mentioned it in case you saw something in here that you thought would be especially useful. Moisejp (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely coming together. I really like how you tied Janovitz to Ricks—good idea! I noticed a few very small remaining issues just now. One is that I think we need to change the Dylan quote where he says, "This is called 'Freeze Out'" because wasn't the actual title "Seems Like a Freeze-Out"? It'd be clearer if we just quoted Heylin or someone giving that name. I think we should also add that to the lead. I'm also going to add a clarification that "the pipes still cough" is a reference to the lyrics, because people unfamiliar with the song won't know; I'll use as a source. The last little thing I noticed is we may need to tweak the sentence "The song has been described by several critics as being a masterpiece". Heylin says it is Dylan's finest work/song, which is not exactly the same thing. I don't have Wilentz or Gill, so I don't know what wording they use. I'll try to deal with the "Freeze-out" and "pipes still cough" issues in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Let's add a picture or two. This [5] would be a good candidate. This could be good [6]. One of the pictures in The Band article could be possibilities, too. It doesn't matter if they aren't the right year—we can just say "So-and-so (shown in here in [year])." You have any preferences for pics? Moisejp (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I added a few photos. I tried a tentative caption for the Garcia one, but you can change it if you want. If you look in the edit history you'll see I also tried one of Kooper instead of the Band one. If you want you can look at that version in case you like it more. I reasoned, for one thing, most of the Hawks didn't actually play on the released song, while Kooper did. Also, it may be complicated in the caption to explain that Dylan is shown here in 1974 with the Band, who used to be called the Hawks, when they recorded with him on the early BoB sessions. But if you don't think that's complicated, no worries. This picture of Charlie McCoy is also really nice [7]. The only thing is that I wanted to maybe put a pic on the left side, since the Garcia and Ginsberg photos are on the right. But McCoy would be looking outwards, off the page, which is probably not good for layout. Anyway, if you think the Band picture works well, that's fine. In the next few days or so I'll look into trying to do the edits to the body of the text that I mentioned above. As for BoB, I addressed a few of Efe's concerns yesterday and will try to look through the article again very soon for other instances of his concerns. Moisejp (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
VoJ is lookin' good! I just went through and did a bunch of copy edits. I still need to do the three edits I mentioned a few paragraphs above. The two of them I can do by myself, but the "masterpiece" one I'll need your help on. Then I think we're really done and we can nominate it for GA. We're 99% of the way there, just gotta do these last three edits. I probably can't spend any more time on it today, but I'll get back to it in the next day or two. BTW, dunno if you saw on Allreet's talk page a while back, but I'm back in Canada, so now instead of being 8 hours ahead of you, I'm 8 hours behind. Moisejp (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and nominated it (I listed you as a co-nominator, of course). Sorry, I missed your note about my "masterpiece" concern, thanks for typing it out again. Well, I'll trust your judgment on this. I guess we can always consider rewording it later if we get a good idea. I ended up not changing "Freeze Out" to "Seems Like a Freeze Out". I just added it to the lead. I had been planning to use Heylin (1995) as my source for "SLAFO" but then I saw that, at least in that book, Heylin calls it simply "Freeze Out". Anyway, it's probably arbitrary anyhow whether there's the "Seems Like" and Dylan himself did call it "Freeze Out" at least the one time. Moisejp (talk) 06:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
About my return to Canada, no, it wasn't exactly planned. A series of circumstances occurred which convinced me that coming back to Canada was my best option for right now. I did enjoy Japan, but every change is also an opportunity. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blonde on Blonde[edit]

The article Blonde on Blonde you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Blonde on Blonde for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! Moisejp (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Blonde on Blonde to good article status.

Your GA nomination of Visions of Johanna[edit]

The article Visions of Johanna 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 seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Visions of Johanna for things which need to be addressed. ♫GoP♫TCN 14:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick gold. I've made most of the changes that Great Orange Pumpkin asked for. I've left one for you since it's related to your Wilentz source. Cheers. Moisejp (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Mick! Great job! Moisejp (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Visions of Johanna to good article status.


Mick, Im not sure if your into the Doors, but if so, this is an interesting but flawed view.[8]. All the best from Eire. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


Mick, someone gave me this barnstar last week for "Visions of Johanna"—I guess a kind of random act of appreciation for fellow hardworking editors kind of thing. Well, if I deserve it, so do you! BTW, knock on wood for BoB, but so far seems to be so good. Fingers crossed for continuation of the same.

GA barnstar.png The Good Article Barnstar
Good job on helping to promote Visions of Johanna to Good Article status. Let's keep on Bobbing! Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Rock criticism[edit]

Thanks, that was interesting—I'd never done much research on the earliest days of rock critics, in that regard I'd only ever gotten to maybe the early 70s. I've been lucky to mostly work on Wikipedia articles from the alternative rock era, which is very well sourced. Despite this I listen to a broad spectrum of rock music, including a lot of Beatles and Dylan (as I mentioned, Blonde on Blonde is my favorite Dylan album) among others. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent article from BBC...

I want to use this article to create a list of the most (and least) important decades in the history of music. I need your input...

How much weight do you think I should give to these variables:

number of studio albums plus #1 singlesplus Grammys plus brits plus "other"?... and then divide by number of years together.

Thanks for your diverse contributions on RnR and the Holocaust (and editing my edit for "Chess Records":)

Ssteve90266 (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Ssteve90266

@Ssteve90266: Not sure I can offer much help. I can't read the article you linked because it's on That website is not accessible to someone living in UK (like me). When I click on it, it says "We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC."
I don't know what you mean by "a list of the most (and least) important decades in the history of music". Surely every decade in history of pop music produced important music. My sense of music history tells me bands like The Velvet Underground and Joy Division were very important but they didn't have #1 singles or win Grammies or Brits or stay together for many years. Sorry I can't help you. Mick gold (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dylan: Deal at the crossroads[edit]

Thank you for the heads-up.Jpcohen (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

FAC Blonde on Blonde; spotcheck requires attention[edit]

Dear editor, I spotchecked Blonde on Blonde, and the FAC requires attention regarding the spotcheck. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Hi Mick. Merry Christmas! I hope you are having happy holidays in England. Looking forward to more collaborating in 2012! Moisejp (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mick. What do you think? On one hand, J Milburn said the media requirements are satisfied, but on the other he seems to think more than a little that (this is my interpretation) the song captions would be better to restate what is in the text of the article—I guess like the picture captions we did for the VoJ article. Do you think it'd be worthwhile to quickly rewrite the captions to be more in line with what's in the main text? If we did that we'd also have to adjust the song use rationales because right now a couple of them refer to stuff in the captions, not in the main text. But if we do, I think we should do it right away because, although so far everyone has supported, I'm a little worried that if the FAC drags on much longer the delegates may decide we haven't resolved all issues in a timely manner, especially if it ends on a kind of "unresolved" note. But maybe I'm worrying for nothing, I don't know. What do you think? It's late here and I'm going to bed, but if you want to rewrite the captions, I can help tomorrow. Moisejp (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Your changes look good to me. Let's see if anyone says anything in FAC. Thanks! :-) Moisejp (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like it has passed [9]. Great work! Moisejp (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the star! I really wasn't expecting it and was touched. I hope it's not too predictable a response, but I've left one for you, too. Moisejp (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Mick, I could add a 30-second sound clip to the SELOTL article for you, if you want. Let me know if you have a preference for which 30 seconds. From our BoB experience, I guess it pays to have a sample that matches something talked about in the article. At some point I could probably help out with the Covers section, too. Talk to you later, Moisejp (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The sound clips can be 10% up to a maximum of 30 seconds. So basically songs up to 5 minutes in length, it's 10%, for over 5 minutes, 30 seconds. But, listen, I'm actually going to take that wiki-break I was talking about and just concentrate on certain real life stuff for the next little while. I don't know, I imagine it'll be a few weeks, but could be shorter, could be longer. When I get back I can help you out with SELOTL and I'll try to do some more work on WTRF. Sorry to leave just as I offered to do the sound clip thing, but I will help you out with it when I get back. Talk again soon, Moisejp (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi mick, I'm a little confused. Are you OK with the new edits? "His recordings with drums electric bass and guitar instrument resulted in controversy and criticism from some in the folk movement who earlier had denounced Dylan for writing more personal songs and no longer writing political songs."--Artoasis (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thankfully, you felt it's horrible too! I tried to be as polite as possible, but I was a little shocked to see a sentence like this. Have you seen my reply on Dylan's talk page? I don't have any problem with "rock musician" (as any sane person), but I want this to end as soon as possible. So I proposed a minor concession. What do you think? I personally think "electric recording" is clear enough, but then there's a certain Mr Anonymous.--Artoasis (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I see. How about we wait for more input, and then I will try to restore your version (...back by rock musicians), and wait for an edit war, :) --Artoasis (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


I've noticed. I am not replying now, waiting to see what others post. I'd hope you could try to write the neutral overview, at least the first draft, as I consider myself a bit POVed there (I'd usually side with Chodakiewicz POV than Polonsky's). I'd expect Poeticbent would be on the same boat as I. A good editor to ask for input would be User:Malik Shabazz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


I think the best way forward at this point is RfC. I acknowledge that there is a potentially valid concern about TE, and possibly a return to TE, by "certain parties," shall we say, but until and unless the editing on the talk page becomes truly tendentious, or the article itself is made to suffer through edit warring and the like, ArbCom would probably ask that less "final" means be at least attempted first. In this case, RfC is probably, at this point, the way to go. Unfortunately, yes, that means that it will still take a bit longer. If the conduct becomes truly disruptive of the article itself, of course, WP:ANI can be contacted, and page protection of some sort sought. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I could file the RfC if you want. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyone can really say anything, including us admins. I'll also leave a message at a few noticeboards for further input. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


It's much more rewarding to keep an eye on the good guys. LOL. Unless I saw a reference to confirm a genre, I would stick with the generic "blues rock" Dylan nearly always has an element of blues in his songs, WTRF is no exception. Not sure I would call this song or "Woogie-Boogie" a boogie song, but that's just my opinion. Happy editing --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw this after I just thought we had reached consensus and I made the change! What do you think, Mick? To be honest, just now when I was looking up the wiki article for "Blues rock" I was worried maybe it's often heavier than WTRF. But I figured, no description is going to be perfect, so with "Blues rock" – "Boogie-woogie" maybe we had at least covered the bases. Argh. One idea would be to start a discussion on the WikiProject Dylan page and see if we can get some consensus there. But to be honest I'm already a little exhausted about debating this particular issue. I would be willing to go with simply "Blues rock"--as Richhoncho says, it could be considered generic and "safe." Or maybe we could find a reference to a genre somewhere, as Richhoncho suggested? Personally I'd be happy with "Blues rock – Boogie-woogie" but your initial instinct seems to have been that "Boogie-woogie" was wrong, and now Richhoncho is saying the same thing. There may be lots of other people out there who would think so. Moisejp (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
All right, I changed it to "Blues rock." Hey, have you thought at all about any images you'd like to include? I have a few ideas:
  • One of Leon Russell [10] seems like an obvious choice.
  • I think this one [11] of Bill Wyman would work well and would be easy to write something relevant about it.
  • Or if we added a sentence about Mick Jagger doing vocals on the Ben Waters recording, we could use a photo of him. I think I'd slightly prefer Wyman personally, but I'm easy.
  • I looked for Jim Keltner pics, but couldn't find any. Too bad.
  • In WikiCommons there's a whole heap of Greil Marcus photos [12]. Well, I kind of think that Marcus's part in the song's story could possibly be considered too incidental (as a mere reviewer of the song) to warrant a photo. But the reason I mentioned him is that the Critical Comments section is the longest section, a big block of text, and a photo in there would help break things up.
This weekend I'm going to try to do some work on expanding the lead, if I have time. Moisejp (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Mick, I added some refs (Dean, Gill, Marcus, Varesi) with Google Books links that are And now I suddenly wondered whether people in other countries will be able to access them. Can you? Moisejp (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Heylin says that Dylan asked Russell help him "find a new sound". Do you know of any other sources that could expand that idea? We could possibly make a great mini-Background paragraph if we had a solid reference about what drove Dylan to want to find a new sound. Moisejp (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I used "frequently" a couple of times for how often Dylan's been playing WTRF. What do you think? He's played it 476 times since 1987, about 19 times a year. I don't know how many shows he plays a year, but say it's 150, is 19 "frequently"? Also, do you like my statement that he's played it "over 450 times" for 478 times? Moisejp (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and tried out the additions I proposed for the Writing and Recording section, and added a couple more sentences to the end of the section. See if you think everything sounds appropriate. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Mick, thanks a lot for your contributions. I think it's looking pretty good, looking pretty much ready for GAN. I may nominate it tonight when I get home from work. I might possibly do one more round of quick polishing, but I don't think it'll be much. If there are any more changes you think you're going to want to make before I nominate, let me know. (Or, if you need more time, that's fine, too—I don't have to nominate it tonight.) Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this sentence, what do you think: "For Heylin, by beginning the song with the question "What's the matter with me?/I don't have much to say", Dylan is subverting critics like Ralph Gleason, who had proclaimed "We've got Dylan back again" on listening to his recently released New Morning album." Is there too much background and are readers going to understand? Basically, that Nashville Skyline and Self Portrait weren't considered serious albums by some/lots of fans and critics. That's the problem sometimes with quoting Heylin, is that he assumes his readers are deep into Dylan and will catch all the underlying context. We could spell the sentence out, maybe, but I'd be a bit uncomfortable because Heylin doesn't actually mention those albums, and where does one draw the line between us doing that, and other "interpretation" of quotations. I considered cutting the sentence altogether, but it'd be a bit of a shame because it subtly links the two themes you mention in the lead that critics agree about: lack of inspiration and wanting privacy (wanting the public to get off his back). But is that too subtle for the average reader anyway? And when it comes to it, Heylin is the only one here who talks about lack of inspiration, so can we say "critics agree" about that? Maybe in a very broad sense we can. I don't know, I'm just throwing out ideas and questions here. What do you think about all this? Moisejp (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated it for GAN, adding you as a co-nominator. If it turns out you're too busy to attend to many queries in the review process, that's fine, I can handle most of them. I might just need you to address anything in the books you have (Ricks, Gray...). Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mick. Thanks for your note and sorry for the delayed reply. I'm having Internet problems at the place where I'm living. Right now I'm at a cybercafe. About your question, I can't remember if we have ever tried to put the caption right into the infobox. I think, from my brief checking just now, when we have put a caption, the sound clip box has been separate from the infobox. That doesn't necessarily mean there is no way to do what you propose. When I have some more relaxed Internet time, I will try to investigate. In the meantime, we could either hold off on the caption or move the sound clip out of the infobox. I hope my Internet will be up and running again soon. But if it doesn't, I may not have a chance to edit again right away. But I'll try to at least keep an eye on WTRF if any big issues come up in GAN. Talk again soon, Moisejp (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, Mick. I moved it very slightly. I'm back at the Internet cafe today, but after today it's possible I won't be online again for a number of days. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! Moisejp (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mick, how are you? I hope all is well. A couple things I've thought of for WTRF in the last few days:
  1. In your caption for the sound clip, you attribute the blistering guitar to Davis. But we don't actually say anywhere in the main part of the article that his was the lead guitar. Do you have a source for that?
  2. In the lead we say that the song was written and recorded in studio. In the main part of the article, we fairly explicitly say the lyrics and melody were written during the session, and I think we hint the music was too, but I thought it'd be nice to make that point all the clearer. Heylin (2009) quotes a Rolling Stone article: "The song was written and cut during [in-studio] Russell-Dylan jams." I wanted to slip a sentence in there after "Russell recalls that when developing the song, the basic track was recorded first, before any words or melody were written" to that effect. I don't know if you agree, but I thought such a sentence might disrupt the current flow (←two words relevant to the song!) less if we quoted Rolling Stone directly rather than Heylin. I think you said before that you have the Rolling Stone CD-ROM that has all the previous editions. Is it easy to navigate? If you were able to find that article it could possibly generate not only that quote, but maybe some other insight into the sessions? (Presumably the article is from 1971?) Anyway, just an idea. Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Every time I see "WTRF" I think it looks like WTF with some extra "R" qualifier in there. Anyway, I had a stab at adding my idea to the article. As I wrote in my edit summary, and above, I am concerned about the effect on what I think was pretty good flow. But see what you think—and possibly if you have ideas for improving it. About the Rolling Stone DVD-ROM, can you bring up individual issues? Presumably the article would be between March and June 1971—it might be quite quick to scan page by page for headlines about Dylan and/or Russell. Or can you open each issue to its first few pages and look at the table of contents? Also, possibly the article refers to the song with a slightly different title (since it hadn't been released yet and the journalist would've been just judging from his own ears) like "River Flow" or "Watch the River Flow"?? I don't know if you already have, but you could try searching for variants of WTRF. By the way, you said there were a couple of 1972 mentions—anything interesting in them, even if it's not the specific article we were looking for? Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that doesn't sound like the report that Heylin quoted. Maybe the report wasn't from 1971 at all but was compiled after the fact. Oh well. Anyway, have a wonderful time in Crete—is it a holiday, or for work on a documentary? Either way, sounds fantastic! Thanks for always maintaining the main BD article. Take care and talk again when you get back! Moisejp (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dylan & KT[edit]

Hello Mick Gold - I thought that you added a great quote from Dylan to the Kingston Trio article, of which I am the most active editor. I just wanted you to know that I re-positioned it to earlier in the article. I already had a related quote from Dylan's Rolling Stone interview from the time that Chronicles came out, so I interpolated your quote and reference right after that in the popular music section. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


He he, and there seems is sporting chance he will be a PM in the not too far future. In actually like him, but as a person; I think he'd be a good man to go to for a few pints with, but as a politian; no stones, no principals, obv. heavily influenced by Malcom Tucker types. And I feel slighly sorry for Ken, the mad bastard, re the games, though given the chance any of that old labour gang I happily garrot. At least Boris could give a sly acknowlegement. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

CBS Records[edit]

There is a discussion in the Talk:CBS Records page which I'm asking you to get involved in. As you may know, the former CBS Records label is now Columbia Records and the former CBS Records company is now Sony Music. Someone wants to add more material about the former CBS Records in the current CBS Records article which is not connected in any way with the old CBS Records. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Company of Biologists[edit]

There used to be an entomological publisher called this, which was listed on the page, but they're not listed there now: your proposed chnage seems sensible and so I've implemented it. SP-KP (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Stumbled on this review from 1965 in Billboard [13]. Not sure if you want to use it and possibly rework the first para to include both British and American initial reviews, or if you want to stick it somewhere else. I leave it up to you whether and how to use this. (BTW, I hope you can read it. It's pretty small, but if I zoom my browser one level up, the fuzziness vs. size balance is just enough that I can make it out.) Moisejp (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it says "top-of-the-chart-winner". Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going through the article and noticing some things that maybe you could fix better than me. I was going to sum them all up at the end, but might be easier for me to list some of them one by one as I notice them:

  • "As in "Like a Rolling Stone", "Queen Jane Approximately" warns the female subject of the song of her imminent fall from grace." But in LARS, the fall from grace has arguably already happened, in which case it is not imminent and the comparison as is doesn't quite work.
Good point. I've re-written & simplified this - is it OK? mick
  • This issue has come up before, but are we comfortable with the phrase "successfully recorded"? Is it clear enough, especially to non-music types? I don't have a strong opinion, just checking what you think. Moisejp (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's OK, mick
  • "But for many critics, the reality hovering behind the song is the then-escalating Vietnam War; the "king of the Philistines" who sends his slaves "out into the jungle" has been heard as a reference to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson may also be present as the Commander In Chief who declares, "The sun's not yellow, it's chicken".[51]" This is attributed to Gill. Does he specifically say that "many critics" believed it was about the Vietnam War? This may not be clear and could come up in FAC. (I also wonder whether the "sun's not yellow, it's chicken" line is worth mentioning, but that's a smaller concern.)
Good point, I've re-written it - is it OK? mick
  • " of Southern music greats such as Muddy Waters, Son House, Elvis Presley, and Charley Patton." Is it subjective that they were "greats"? I wonder whether another phrase, closer in meaning to "influential figures" could work better. But if you disagree, we can try to go with it as is. Moisejp (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I think music greats is OK, let's see. mick
Your changes look good, Mick. Thanks! I'm continuing my "thorough read-through" right now and hope to finish today. One other thing I noticed is that the song fair use rationales need to be tweaked because (unless things have changed) they want a separate set of rationales for each article the song gets used in, and not have them clumped together (that was an issue during the BoB review too, as I recall). Anyway, I'll take care of that in the coming days.
  • I wonder if the Reception section could be confusing. The first paragraph begins with "Initial reviews of Highway 61 in the British music press" but ends with a (US) Billboard review, which evidently is not meant to be included under the "British bafflement and admiration" umbrella. Then the next para talks about q 1965 (British) Daily Telegraph review—not clear if it's meant to be included in the "bafflement and admiration" (certainly it does express admiration). I guess "mysterious, possibly half-baked words" could indicate some degree of bafflement. Then there is another 1965 US review (Broadside) and then an anonymous 1965 one quoted by Gill.
  • I wonder if it's inconsistent that we don't include any of the 1965 reviews in the Professional ratings infobox. I could add them. I guess we could say that the reviews in all of New Musical Express, Melody Maker, Billboard, and The Daily Telegraph were "(Favorable)"? Or how much overlap do you think there should be between the infobox and the main text? If we took that one step further, we could also mention, for example, the five-star Rolling Stone and Allmusic reviews, etc. in the main text—but that may be overkill. What do you think is a good level of balance? We could also possibly leave it as is, and consider that in this case the infobox is meant to supplement the main text by providing only reviews not included in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to make Reception section flow more logically. I started with Billboard, then the point about NME and MM both impressed and baffled, which hopefully leads to Larkin in DT with similar mix of enthusiasm and scepticism in his response. After that, I think Ochs and Gill quotes are OK. Please tweak if you disagree. I think infobox complements the info in Reception, but it does not have to mirror it exactly. mick
  • Throughout the article I think we mostly or always use the present tense for critical commentary (Shelton writes, Heylin argues...). For the 1965 reviews in the Reception section, we use the past, which makes sense, but for the contemporary reviews, did you have a reason for using the past? Should probably use the present, unless you disagree. I could easily change those, unless you want to.
Your point is a good one. Please edit to resolve the issue of tenses. mick
  • The lead mentions the electric element of BIABH and H61R but that I think there's no mention of BIABH in the main text, and, unless I've missed it, H61R's electric element is only briefly alluded to in the "Desolation Row" description. If that is indeed an important aspect to discuss, we should bring it to the fore in the main text; otherwise we should cut it from the lead, which should be a summary of the article. Thoughts? Moisejp (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
You may be right; can you work that idea into main text? as I think that idea at start of lead para is a good intro to H61R album. mick
I did some major rearranging of the Reception section. See what you think. In version 1, I mostly just cut Dylan's own endorsement of the album, which didn't really seem to flow or even totally fir the "Reception" section. Then in version 2, I tried more substantial rearranging. I cut Ochs's praise, which didn't seem that notable--also, I think we need to be careful not to include too many examples of extremely strong praise, or they lose impact for the reader--so this seemed like a good one to cut. I also removed the bit about mastery of a new genre (the quote that supported it wasn't very convincing support). Then I expanded the Billboard review and placed it with the sales. Now (I hope) there is a good flow from 1965 reviews to that year's chart positions to gold in 1967, platinum in 1997 to contemporary reviews. But if you strongly prefer my version 1 edit, or the inclusion of the Dylan endorsement, you can revert. If we were to use the Dylan endorsement, I think it would work best at the very end. But personally I feel the "best-of" polls para is probably a better ending for the section. Moisejp (talk) 07:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Moisejp, I'm happy with your rearrangement, and happy to leave it like this. Mick gold (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I added a Live performances section, since there is currently mention in the lead of him playing most of the songs regularly. Feel free to tweak. I could add more detail—dates and locations—but not sure how much it'd add. By the way, the Foxborough show where he debuted "Queen Jane" was apparently with the Grateful Dead, but wasn't sure if he was backed him or just opened for him on that show. Oh, I see the song was released on Dylan and the Dead (one of the few Dylan albums I don't have). (I guess they were backing him, then.) Well, that's probably worth mentioning in the article. Come to think of it, could possibly mention other notable released live performances of H61R songs, including the Isle of Wight performance of LARS, for example. I guess there is potential to expand the section quite a bit, if we feel it adds to the article. Moisejp (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for addition. My feeling is this is useful info to demonstrate H61R has been central to Dylan's shows over last 47 years, but we do not need more details. I think Manchester 1966 performance of LARS - Judas! - is more important than Isle of Wight, for example, but I can't see the point of more details. Something is not working in cite about the number of performances. Doesn't connect to Ref section. mick
About his new electric trend in BIABH and H61R, the obvious place for that would be the Background section, with mention of his first four albums being all acoustic. But the question is how to skillfully combine mention of his gradual moving away from protest songs and frustrations of the expectations of the folkie movement, and his growing interest in electric music, with what we already have about prior to LARS him not being happy with the songs he was singing. I'm sure there could be a good story there, but I think you'd be able to weave it better than me, with your access to so many sources. Well, I can look online in Google Books to see if any sources there allude to that connection tangibly. I'll see what I can do, but if you have any good ideas from sources you have, feel free to jump in. Moisejp (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll try to sort something out this week. I hope we can proceed to FAC soon. mick
OK. I'll leave the Live section as is for now. The next thing I'll do is fix the FURs for the three sound clips, and then do a final check for any inconsistencies, broken links, etc. I'll have a peak in my sources and online ones for anything that could be useful in Background, but if I don't find anything, will see what you can come up with. I'm happy to try to wind this up soon, as you have suggested. One other idea: photos? If you don't want to bother now we could tinker with it after FAC is finished and add some leisurely at a later date. But I have a couple of ideas. Now that we have a Live section, just about any Dylan live shot would fit there. Another idea is the pic in the Charlie McCoy article, and the caption could say that it was the first appearance of McCoy on a Dylan album, with several other appearances to follow. Maybe an Al Kooper shot could be a third one to use for balance. But whatever, these are just ideas. Again, if you'd rather not bother with any pics for now, I'll drop the idea. Moisejp (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's likely we're going to find free 1965/66 pics of any of the H61R musicians, and think the best we're going to be able to do is "So-and-so, shown here in (some other year),...". For Al Kooper, it'd be this pic from 2009 [14]. For McCoy, this pic from 1990 [15]. For Dylan, we've got these ones to choose from [16]. I think for the live performances part, any of the recent live ones would be very appropriate, since we're talking about how he continues today to play H61R material. Possibly, depending how the background section ends up, and how much emphasis on his transformation from folkie to rocker, one of the 1963 pictures could be used to show his pre-rocker stage. A few other ideas:[17], [18], Warhol in '67 [19], [20]. I may be busy in the next couple of days, but I'll try to get more editing done ASAP. Moisejp (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you agreed with my last proposal or not, but I have tentatively put in some pics. If you disagree with any of them, no worries, feel free to remove. If we could think of one more somewhere during the Songs section, it could be good for balance. I'll try to think about that. (But of course better to have no pic in the section than to have one that feels at all forced.) Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Your captions look great. I think we still either need to mention BIABH in the main text or remove it from the lead. I didn't have any immediate ideas for where to stick it in the main text. I'll try to have another look at that. I tweaked the Live performances section to reflect that records from 1965-1966 are incomplete and we can't be 100% sure that he didn't play QJA or that he only played FAB6 twice; but I think what I ended up with is a bit wordy, so if any ideas jump out at you for trimming it, great. I think we may be 99.5% ready for FAC. Right now I am going through checking ref links, etc., and going to do a final read through. I do still need to update the free use rationales for the three songs—I'll try to do that today. Moisejp (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I finished the FURs and went ahead and nominated the article for FA. I removed the Notes section (see my edit summary for reason), but if you disagree, you can put it back, or let's discuss. Moisejp (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, if you feel strongly the Note should be there, let's keep it. I don't disagree that the both the organ's prominence in LARS and Wilson's dismissal are important. I just feel it's unconvincing that the two are strongly connected. But maybe I don't have all the information—for one thing, I don't have access to Polizzotti. All I know is the way Kooper tells the story in the No Direction Home DVD, it sounds like Wilson says kind of good-naturedly, "Oh man, he's not an organ player." And then, I imagined, Dylan probably said, "No, I really want the organ put up in the mix" and then I imagined Wilson would have conceded, because after all, Dylan was the boss. If that's the way it happened, then the issue was not so much about the organ itself (as the present Note makes it sound like) but over Wilson's "questioning of Dylan's instinct/authority". And I imagined that Dylan wouldn't have dismissed Wilson over just one incident like that, so there were probably other incidents, which means the whole issue would have been even less about the organ in the mix. But again, I haven't read Polizzotti, and that's just how I imagined it. And that was also just my interpretation of how Kooper told the story (that Wilson said that good-naturedly). Anyways, that's what I meant when I said that for me the Note wasn't convincing. But yeah, if you feel strongly that the Note is good, let's keep it. Moisejp (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mick, thanks for your edits towards the first reviewer's comments. I'm going to be very busy for the next two days but should be able to jump in around Thursday. Moisejp (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of the suggestion that came up to make the Songs section like the one in OK Computer? It's not so different from ours (about one para per song, without necessarily any transition between each paragraph) except without the titles and "Main article" links. I guess Indopug's point is that removing these would make it look/feel a lot shorter. It might also force us to really whittle down the LARS and "Desolation Row" ones to what can fit into one paragraph, which might arguably be a good thing. It could be an interesting experiment to try out that format once. Of course, another possibility is to do what we did with The Basement Tapes. I really don't have a strong opinion about any of this. Whatever works to get us FA. I know you did trim it some, but I think with two reviewers already having mentioned the length of the song section (and your trims don't seem to satisfy exactly what Nathan was concerned about ("that you pretty much have a song article composition section for every track on the album. This seems excessive.") we're probably not going to get away with leaving it in the present format. What do you think? Moisejp (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Here [21] Ruhlmann talks about how important the song "H61R" has been in Dylan's live shows. Could possibly be one piece of the puzzle to fix the Live Performances section. Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits; I just looked quickly but will have a better look tomorrow. I am going to look again at trimming the Live performances section a bit more, if I can. It feels like it should be trimmable in the second half of the para but not sure exactly how. Anyway, I'll ponder that in the next couple of days, and check more carefully what you did to Songs. Moisejp (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mick. From Nikkimaria's comments, the only thing I'm not sure is I resolved or not is her "tone/neutrality" comment. I tried to edit some sentences where the NPOV may have been unclear, and I may or may not have caught all of them. But I think it would be good for us to go through line by line to see if there's anything else. I'm going to have another look at it tonight, but if you happen to have time to have a peek, too, that'd be great. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I enjoyed what you wrote on my Talk page. Well, about the "audacious" thing, I just cut it because that was the easiest solution. But if you wanted to rewrite the sentence in a way that clearly attributes the "audacious" opinion to a critic ("Critic X comments that Dylan audaciously..." or something), Right now the source is Gill, right? I don't have access to Gill, but presumably if it made it extra clear Gill was saying that, and not us, I can't see how the reviewers could object to that. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mick, you'll see I made a bold-ish edit. See what you think about it. By the way, sorry if I'm being too careful, but in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead it says "features many songs that have been acclaimed as classics". Does the main text explicitly support this? We already mention later in the lead that three of the songs were in Rolling Stone's 500 Songs (which is, obviously, explicitly defendable) so there is also some overlap there within the lead. If we wanted to be safe, we could remove the "many songs that have been acclaimed as classics". I think when in doubt it sometimes can be better to tone down the "hype" within an article. I'm not saying H61R necessarily is or isn't guilty of this, but some music articles I've read on here are so hyped up with praise (the articles obviously being written by fans) that it gets to be a bit of a turn-off. Anyway, these are just kind of rambling thoughts. Back to the issue at hand, if you feel strongly that you want to keep it in, and that it is definitely defendable from the main text of the article, OK. But I do think there is already enough praise in the lead that readers understand "This was an important album" and not having the "many classic songs" phrase wouldn't lessen this impact. Moisejp (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the edit. As I was writing the para above I convinced myself that the edit was a good thing, not just for the first reason I mentioned, but for all of them. The overlap with the RS500 mention I thought was especially distracting. Anyway, I hope that's OK. If not, let's find a good solution/compromise. Moisejp (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
In the lead, I think the "multiple accolades" maybe refers to the Mojo and VH1 polls that we ended up cutting from the article due to not having a reliable source? I guess it could refer to critics' praise, but in that case dunno if "multiple" is the best word. What do you think we should do with that, if anything? Moisejp (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I took a stab at addressing WP Penguin's concern that the LARS sound clip caption didn't describe the sound of the song. Feel free to tweak if you can improve. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going through and trying to make sure we haven't missed anyone's comments. Nikkimaria says "newspaper/magazine/journal articles for which you do not include a link should include page numbers". Did you do something for this one? When I scanned your edits I didn't see anything, but I also don't see any (off-line) newspaper/magazine article without page numbers. Also, wasn't sure because you wrote you responded to "some" of her comments, so just wanted to clarify whether you think we have responded to everything. Also, I noticed you covered most of Nathan's comments, but did you do anything with his first one about alternating between "Dylan, he, the singer"? If not, I can try to do that in the next couple of days, but just wanted to check whether you'd done anything towards that. Hmm, looking at the article, we do seem to use "Dylan" a lot. I'm not saying it'll be easy to trim it down too much, but I'll have an attempt at trimming it down some. Well, still no supports, but it feels like we are making at least some progress. Moisejp (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks like things pulled through. Great work! Moisejp (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Traveling Wilburys[edit]

Anything to add? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Highway 61 Revisited[edit]

Hadnt reralised Dan had left, by concidence I cut my wki teeth with him on Punk rock back in the day. Im a bit swamped atm with diferent projects, but have been thinking about and listening to Dylan a fair bit recently - arguments with my father re 60s vs 70s Dylan; I consider "I threw it all away",[22] for example, even "political world" (what a drum sound) to be among his best work and adore the albums since time out of mind. Anyways, would like to help here, but might be a week or two. If ive done nothing by the new year, acan you ping/prod me again. Best. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Highway 61 Revisited[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Highway 61 Revisited know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 28, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 28, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bob Dylan

Highway 61 Revisited is the sixth studio album by the American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, released in August 1965. Having until then recorded mostly acoustic music, Dylan used rock musicians as his backing band on every track of the album, except for the closing 11-minute ballad, "Desolation Row". Critics have focused on the innovative way in which Dylan combined driving, blues-based music with the subtlety of poetry to create songs that captured the political and cultural chaos of contemporary America. Leading with the single "Like a Rolling Stone" (a top-10 hit in several countries), the album features songs that Dylan has continued to perform live over his long career, including "Ballad of a Thin Man" and "Highway 61 Revisited". He named the album after the major North American highway connecting his birthplace, Duluth, Minnesota, to southern cities famed for their musical heritage, including St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans. The album, which peaked at No. 3 in the United States charts and No. 4 in the United Kingdom, was ranked No. 4 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. "Like a Rolling Stone" was listed at No. 1 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time list. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

visions of Bob Dylan
Thank you for quality articles on Bob Dylan's creations, such as Highway 61 Revisited, as an "integral part of the WP:DYLAN collaboration team, and working on Like a Rolling Stone", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 410th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the collaboration on The Basement Tapes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 410 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for today's Blonde on Blonde, performed in collaboration! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

Hi Mick. How are you? If you have time and interest, could you have a look at the discussion I've started here? Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 27, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 27, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Bob Dylan in 1963

The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan is the second studio album by the American singer-songwriter Bob Dylan, released on May 27, 1963 by Columbia Records. Eleven of the thirteen songs on the album are original compositions by Dylan. The album opens with "Blowin' in the Wind", which would become one of the anthems of the 1960s, and several other songs which came to be regarded as amongst Dylan's best compositions and classics of the 1960s folk scene: "Girl from the North Country", "Masters of War", "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall" and "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right". Dylan's lyrics embraced stories ripped from the headlines about civil rights and he articulated anxieties about the fear of nuclear warfare. Balancing this political material were love songs, sometimes bitter and accusatory, and material that features surreal humor. Freewheelin' showcased Dylan's songwriting talent for the first time, propelling him to national and international fame. The album reached number 22 in the US (eventually going platinum), and later became a number 1 hit in the UK. In 2003, the album was ranked number 97 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Gold is correct[edit]

Mr. Gold is correct when he said that Marvin Karlins taught his folk guitar for the first time. I am Marvin Karlins and here is what happened: In 1959 while both Bob (then Zimmerman) and I attended the University of Minnesota, I offered free folk guitar lessons to interested students at the Hillel Foundation. One afternoon, during one of the sessions, Bob came in and asked me what I was teaching. He said he played guitar and could sing and was interested in the kind of music I was teaching. I told him the lessons were free and he was welcome to sit in whenever he pleased. He did so until I ended the sessions due to pressing academic assignments. When I announced I would no longer be giving the free lessons he came up to me and asked where he could continue to learn more about--and meet other--folksingers. I recommended the Ten O'Clock Scholar, a coffee house which was near the campus. It was there I believe that he met Odetta and went off to New York City. The rest is history. I do have a picture, taken while Bob was my student, showing him watching me instruct the folksinging class. If anyone is interested, I will be glad to send them a copy of the picture.

Best wishes, Marvin Karlins, Ph.D.2607:FE50:0:6201:99C1:DAD8:75B5:E3EE (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Professor of Management

Best wishes[edit]

Colmar (9625058240).jpg Belated happy christmas and a tolerable new year. Gil de Siloe-del retablo de la capilla de San Pedro-catedral de Burgos-DSC 0516b.jpg
Wishing you all the best for 2014 Mick. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sara Dylan#As subject of songs needs work[edit]

She is notable as a muse and subject of Bob Dylan's work but the section is a mess with missing sources and not enough independent sources. Her subject as inspiration and subject matter for Bob is why she is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia as she only has one acting credit and one national magazine picture as a model. Alatari (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on her page. It was a bit out of my regular experience. Alatari (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Mick, how's it going? It has been a while. I hope you have been well. I'll try to send you an e-mail sometime soon and we can really catch up.

I have a suggestion for I'm Not There that of course you can feel free to disregard if you disagree. I'm looking at the Plot section and it seems to me the heavy use of parentheses may disrupt the flow of the prose. Of course, I can understand you wanting to highlight the significance of these details throughout the movie. But I wonder if a different degree of balance might benefit the section's readability. A few ideas, that you could use in conjunction with each other:

  • Go through and see whether there are any details that are less crucial. For example, these jump out at me as maybe ones I'd cut: "This film-within-a-film is entitled Grain of Sand. (The film's title is a reference to the Dylan song "Every Grain of Sand".)" and "(The scene in which Robbie and Claire run romantically through the streets of New York re-enacts the cover of the 1963 album The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan which depicts Dylan arm in arm with his then-girlfriend Suze Rotolo walking down Jones Street in Greenwich Village.)" There are at least a couple of others that would also seem like good candidates to me.
  • Use footnotes for a handful of the details, maybe especially for longer ones.
  • Use other punctuation to mark side notes, as you already do in a few places. For instance, I think em dashes can work well to subtly slip in side notes.

Anyways, have a think about it. Best, Moisejp (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Mick, nice to hear from you. I may be quite busy the next few weeks and might only have time to do cosmetic or otherwise minor changes to the article. But from late April onwards I'm going to have a window of time and would like to try to find and read as many online sources as I can, to get familiar with what we have the potential to work with. Then I can hopefully be all the more helpful in contributing to the article. Sometime in there I will see what I can do with the Plot section, as you suggested. Take care, Moisejp (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Mick, how's it going?! Good work on the Bob Dylan bibliography page. I meant to join in that discussion on the BD talk page where that was decided, but got sidetracked. But you all did OK without me, lol! I think the idea to create a separate BD bibliography page was a good one. Thanks for taking the initiative on that. I hope to get back to helping you with "I'm Not There" soon. There were a couple of projects I wanted to get out of my system, and now I'm biding my time with smaller tasks that don't require sustained concentration until I have a bit more free time. When that time comes, I hope to jump in and give the "I'm Not There" project the attention required. Until then! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 21, 2015[edit]

A summary of a Featured Article you conominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I liked your addition, though I moved it to another sentence and explained it. But it raises a new problem: the TFA column, like the lead, is supposed to be a summary of the article, and (searching for "rock"), I don't see that point in the article. Can you find a place to add it? - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@push to talk, Thanks but I'm not quite sure what you mean. The point about Basement Tapes embodying BD's move away from rock? This point is in Legacy section of the article: "While removed from the public's gaze, Dylan and the Band made music very different from the recordings of other major artists. Andy Gill writes, "Musically, the songs were completely at odds with what was going on in the rest of the pop world, which during the long hot summer of 1967 was celebrating the birth of the hippie movement with a gaudy explosion of 'psychedelic' music—mostly facile paeans to universal love draped in interminable guitar solos."[31] Patrick Humphries itemizes the ways in which Dylan's songs dissented from the dominant ethos of rock culture: "While the rock world vented its spleen on parents and leaders, Dylan was singing privately about parental fidelity. While George Harrison was testifying that life went on within and without you, Dylan was taking his potatoes down to be mashed. While Mick Jagger was 2,000 light years from home, Dylan was strapping himself to a tree with roots."[98]" Best, Mick gold (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see support in the Legacy section for: "The world tour had controversially mixed folk and rock". That's mine; I assumed that's what you meant by "controversially", and I thought that needed some explanation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Controversially" as in Electric Dylan controversy means that Dylan's folk fans were angered by his electric band sound. I think this is in article under "Background and recording": "Dylan's audiences reacted with hostility to the sound of their folk icon backed by a rock band... The tour culminated in a famously raucous concert in Manchester, England, in May 1966 when an audience member shouted "Judas!" at Dylan for allegedly betraying the cause of politically progressive folk music." Mick gold (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that supports it, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean-up of Dylan album FAs[edit]

Hi Mick, how are things? I hope you're well. I was noticing the H61R article needs some minor clean-up/maintenance, and it could be an opportunity to also check up on the state of the other 3 Dylan album FAs. Maybe "LARS" too. Would you be interested in helping out? It could be a little project (minor maintenance all around), and we could do it at our own pace. But if we don't catch the cleaning up while it's still small, the next thing you know it has gotten out of hand and an article could end up at FAR. Anyway, let me know if you're interested in helping. BTW, I know you've been keeping steady at maintaining the Bob Dylan article all these years. Thank again for that. I hope it hasn't been too lonely, and let me know if you'd like more help! Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mick, those Obama documentaries sound very interesting but unfortunately it looks like they are only viewable on the BBC site within the UK. Maybe someday they'll come out DVD. I'm glad to hear you are almost finished and have a wonderful holiday after that. Sure, you can get in touch with me in mid-April, and we can can discuss the best way to approach this. Talk to you soon, Moisejp (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Mick! How are things? I was wondering if you'd want to tackle one or two more Dylan FAs for clean-up? I was thinking maybe H61R could be a good next one, and then maybe "LARS" (it's possible there could be overlap in issues, etc. that need to updated). Let me know if you think you'd have time. Cheers! Moisejp (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll look for dead links, questionable edits, etc. I was also thinking of also adding as a footnote in LARS the alternate theory I told you about (by the drummer on the 1966 tour, have temporarily forgotten his name) that it was a roadie, not Dylan, who said "Play it fucking loud." The source is a documentary DVD called Down in the Flood. Moisejp (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your edits to H61R. I'm going to try to fit in some in the coming days. Say, you put the line "The Cutting Edge does not include the composition "Why Do You Have to Be So Frantic?", which Clinton Heylin claims was recorded at the end of the June 16 session." I think this is the same song as the "Lunatic Princess Revisited" that appears in the Blonde on Blonde outtakes? [[23]] Moisejp (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten around to getting any of the editions of The Cutting Edge. One of these days! Moisejp (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll add that footnote soon. Also related to the article: I noticed in the last couple of years editors have expanded the Accolades table but not provided any references. Do you have an opinion about whether it's worthwhile to try to hunt down the refs ourselves and add them, or we could just restore the table to what it was before. Also someone has added a bunch of artists to the Covers section and used Youtube as the source. Do you agree this is no good, and are you in favour of trimming down the section? (Again, another option would be to be super proactive and hunt down refs ourselves for some or all of these artists.) Moisejp (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2016[edit]

Hi, I'll start work on this one today. You were the first nominator at WP:FAC; if you think anyone else would like to work on the Main Page text, please let them know. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks Dank. I was going to try to spruce up this article, working with another nominator @Moisejp: so I'll tell him about Today's Featured Article and we'll update it a bit. Mick gold (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Great. One question: would you say that it was mainly Dylan or mainly the producer who was unhappy with the sound after the first 3 months of recording, and was looking for a change? - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Mainly Dylan, I think. It was BD who insisted on 24 takes of "One Of Us Must Know" before deciding they had something they could release. BD insisted on 14 takes of "Visions of Johanna" in NY and still didn't think it was right. BD told Robert Shelton, "Oh, I was really down. I mean, in ten recording sessions, man, we didn't get one song...It was the band. But you see, I didn't know that. I didn't want to think that." (quoted in article) Mick gold (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Mick. I'll start looking at the article ASAP. Moisejp (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. I've made a start with The Cutting Edge material. Mick gold (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Cool. I will start by looking at possible issues such as broken links, questionable edits, stuff like that. Moisejp (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed the article doesn't say which critic said "a unique blend of the visionary and the colloquial". If you know, great, if not, I'll have to remove it from the TFA column text. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: I'm puzzled. Both the lead and the "Critical reception and legacy" section clearly cite this quote to Michael Gray (2000) page 5, i.e. Song & Dance Man III: The Art of Bob Dylan by Michael Gray, page 5. It's footnote #1 in the article. Can you not see it? Do you want the name "Michael Gray" in the lead instead of "one critic"? Mick gold (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
See WP:INTEXT. Michael Gray should be mentioned in the article text near where he's being quoted, not just in the references ... otherwise, the reader doesn't know that Gray is the one quoted. He might have been quoting someone else. As long as his name appears in the text, I don't need to put it in the TFA column too. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: Thanks for replying. Not sure I completely understand. (Probably me being thick.) Does this passage in "Critical reception and legacy" mean it's ok in lead and TFA column text? I'm happy to edit it if you want more clarity:
Dylan scholar Michael Gray wrote: "To have followed up one masterpiece with another was Dylan's history making achievement here...Where Highway 61 Revisited has Dylan exposing and confronting like a laser beam in surgery, descending from outside the sickness, Blonde on Blonde offers a persona awash inside the chaos...We're tossed from song to song...The feel and the music are on a grand scale, and the language and delivery are a rich mixture of the visionary and the colloquial."[1] Mick gold (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The TFA text currently includes the quoted phrase "a unique blend of the visionary and the colloquial". Does that phrase currently appear anywhere in the article, other than in the lead? I can't find it anywhere below the lead. WP:INTEXT, in a content guideline, says that quotes need to be attributed in the immediately surrounding article text, not in footnotes or references. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@Dank: You made me go back and check the source: Michael Gray's book Song & Dance man III. There was a slight misquote. I have just changed it in the lead and in para #6 of the "Critical reception and legacy" section. That is the para I quoted in my last response. This is now para #6 of the "Critical reception and legacy" section of the Blonde on Blonde article:
Dylan scholar Michael Gray wrote: "To have followed up one masterpiece with another was Dylan's history making achievement here...Where Highway 61 Revisited has Dylan exposing and confronting like a laser beam in surgery, descending from outside the sickness, Blonde on Blonde offers a persona awash inside the chaos...We're tossed from song to song...The feel and the music are on a grand scale, and the language and delivery are a unique mixture of the visionary and the colloquial." Critic Tim Riley wrote: "A sprawling abstraction of eccentric blues revisionism, Blonde on Blonde confirms Dylan's stature as the greatest American rock presence since Elvis Presley." Mick gold (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Title TK/archive1[edit]

Hi Mick. How's it going? I'm definitely going to start polishing BoB in the next couple of days. I've also been working on this other project, which is improving the Title TK article, and I've now nominated it for FA. I have a feeling that joining in FAC reviews may not be your thing, and if so, that's totally cool. I just wanted to let you know this is on, just in case you are interested in taking a peek, or even simply in sending me some encouraging good vibes. (I'll feel rooted on even knowing you're watching from the sidelines.) Great, in any case, I'll be talking to you very soon for issues regarding BoB. Have a fantastic day! Moisejp (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your contribution! I've started doing small fixes on BoB. Cheers, and talk again soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edits at love and friendship[edit]

Those were nice edits of yours at love and friendship. I just noticed this unexpectedly nice book cover and was wondering if you could figure out how to bring it into the article someway: [24]. Stillman is having his own novelization of the film published with the general release of the film this week and maybe the book cover graphics could be brought in as well. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains-of-Paris: Thanks for your comment. I'm ok at writing and editing text but I don't have any experience of adding images to articles. I rely on wiki friends & editors who have those graphic skills. Mick gold (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds ok. What do you think of moving the Chimes of Freedom article towards a featured article? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Fountains-of-Paris: I think that is an admirable idea, but I'm not able to work on a Dylan FA now due to pressure from other things. Mick gold (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi. Why don't you give it a go yourself? I use a tool called Twinkle which adds a xfd tab to Wikipedia - you simply add the rationale and then nominate then the tool does the rest. To "install" it go to Preferences at the top, Gadgets and then look for Twinkle. Gbawden (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you tell me that you were nominating an article for deletion?[edit]

I wasn't involved with the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme[edit]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks Brian for contacting me. I'm just off for 9 days vacation to Crete with terrible internet connection so I'll think carefully about it while I'm away. Best wishes, Mick gold (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy your break – I think that sometimes a terrible internet connection can be a great blessing in disguise! Do give this mentoring a thought – the responsibility will not be onerous, but it may be that from time to time the opportunity to help an inexperienced will arise and you'll be in a position to take it up. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)