User talk:Mudwater

Greetings, fellow Wikipedians! Let's talk. To start a new discussion, click the new section tab at the top of the page. I'll reply here. If you want me to use a {{Talkback}} template, or to reply on your talk page instead, let me know.

Grateful Dead release labels

Greetings, Mudwater. Here's hoping you are doing well. I note that you properly changed the "Label" infobox field for the articles Europe '72: The Complete Recordings and Europe '72 Volume 2 (as well as the corresponding entries in Grateful Dead discography) from "Grateful Dead" to "Rhino". In reviewing the "Road Trips" series, I see that these albums appear to be on the Rhino label as well, although they were produced by Grateful Dead Productions. Do you agree that the relevant articles on this series should therefore be changed as well? If so, I'm happy to assist in making these minor changes. Thanks.
P.S. I saw Furthur in Atlantic City on Saturday, which was amazing. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 14:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the physical CDs -- and at the cardboard cases -- it appears that the last four Road Trips -- Volume 4 Number 2 through Volume 4 Number 5 -- are on Rhino records, and all the previous ones are on Grateful Dead records. Assuming that you agree, I would say that both the articles and the discography should be updated to reflect this. Good catch. In general, I'm really unclear on why some titles are on Rhino and some not. Who knows, maybe they'll all be on Rhino going forward. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I only have a subset of the Road Trips releases, including a few from Volume 1 and Volume 2, as well as Volume 4 Number 2 through Volume 4 Number 5. I agree that only the last four appear to explicitly have the Rhino logo on them, as well as the dead.net logo, whereas the older ones only have the dead.net logo. All of them, however, are copyrighted by Grateful Dead Productions. While I agree that V4N2 through V4N5 are clearly on the Rhino label, I am not entirely sure that the ones prior to these are on the Grateful Dead label. They theoretically could actually be on the Rhino label as well, without explicitly so indicating with a Rhino logo, particularly since the dead.net website is Rhino's site, and not the Grateful Dead Productions'. I realize that amounts to splitting hairs, but might be worthwhile exploring given the fact that meticulous attention to detail is so inherent in projects such as these. Perhaps you have additional info that can shed light on this. Thanks. — PAIRdoc ^•talk• 03:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have additional info. And indeed, philosophically speaking, how do we truly know what record label an album is on? I'm half kidding and half serious. I've been taking a very evidence based approach, and considering albums to be on the Rhino label if and only if they have the Rhino logo on them. I think it's a good way to make the determination, but, as usual, I'm open to further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Pulled Tags

Hi, I am not mad at all, but please don't pull my cleanup tags unless you fix the problem or I am completely out of line. We can both agree that article needed cleanup, and removing the tag simply because its a unspecified general cleanup tag is unfair and does nothing to better the article. Next time, why don't you tag it with a more general reason. Tags are ment to guide the community to articles in need of repair and I stand by my call. Hope you have a good day Zzaffuto118 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that sometimes articles get a general {{Cleanup}} tag when it's not at all obvious, to me anyway, what needs to be cleaned up. The person who put the tag on probably had one or more specific things in mind, but unless an article is really bad, or has a really obvious issue, other editors might not be able to tell what they were thinking. The recent case is an excellent example, and I couldn't fix the problem because I didn't know what the problem was. So what I think is that editors who put the general Cleanup tag on articles would often, or usually, be doing a lot more of a service if they started a talk page section explaining what they had in mind, even if the explanation is brief. That, or use a more specific tag, as you did when you put the Sections tag on. Of course a different approach would be to fix the article instead of just tagging it, but that's another story. Anyway, I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think that removing a general Cleanup tag and requesting an explanation on the Talk page, like I did, is appropriate and even helpful if I can't tell why the Cleanup tag was put on the article. Like I said in my edit summary, "feel free to re-add if you provide an explanation [on the talk page]". I hope this makes sense, and feel free to reply here. Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Garcia

I don't know what was going on there, but when I loaded the page the graphic was ginormous. Like 2x my screen size. It was screwing up my browser, so I fixed it assuming it would screw up other people's browsers too. I don't know what was going on, but my intention was to fix it not break it. Thanks for the link to the info on the templates, but at the time I was having a hard enough time loading the edit page let alone looking up attribute definitions. erielhonan 06:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Hopefully the image looks okay on your computer now. Sometimes if things start to look strange you can fix it by reloading the page, or by clearing the cache on your browser. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CallMeBurroughs.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

[Barnstar moved to my user page.]

I haven't really done all that much with the article, but thanks for the nice note. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

re: David Bromberg (album) release dates

Hi there, Mudwater. Thanks for your recent talk − I've replied on the article's talk page about early '72 release for the DB album. Cheers ... JG66 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You betcha. I have the article on my watchlist, and I've replied there, at Talk:David Bromberg (album)#Release date. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

I was just thinking of you yesterday! Glad you pointed out the lack of disambiguation for David Gans, who has been a friend to the Wikipedia allowing us use of his photos, as well as being such a nice guy with a storied past of his own. I need to email him again for a photo if him for his page here. While I'm thinking, I should have offered this here for you:

It truly would bring me joy to see you climb around some outside your (our) comfort zone! With honest affection, --Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TakeTwoCDCover.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wally Hedrick / Jerry Garcia

Dear Mudwater, I hope you are well.

Many years ago (23:30, 21 October 2007) I wrote to you and thanked you concerning your editorial input concerning some important materials on the incredible Jerry Garcia wiki page. At that time you gave your full support and wrote that you were happy to help out [1]-- thank you!

Upon returning to the page recently I discovered to my horror that all the material was deleted. I might add, as you certainly understood at the time, that this material is not your ordinary or peripheral material: This material is essential for the Jerry Garcia wiki page in order for the reader to get a comprehensive and detailed understanding of Jerry's early (1) artistic, (2) music, and (3) psychological development.

Here is the original paragraph [2]:

During the following summer, Garcia took up an art program at the San Francisco Art Institute in order to further his burgeoning interest in the visual arts.[16] At the SFAI, Garcia studied with Wally Hedrick and Elmer Bischoff. It was the only school Garcia would ever be proud of attending. [22] Hedrick, a seminal artist and California countercultural figure in San Francisco in the 1950s, was instrumental in introducing him to the city's bohemian scene.[23] Hedrick served Jerry as a model not only as a painter but as an expositor of a way of life. [24] Hedrick thought Garcia bright and hip, and advised Garcia to attend poetry readings at the North Beach coffee houses, such as the Co-Existence Bagel Shop, the social centre of the Beat community. [25] To Garcia, Wally Hedrick was a genuine beatnik; even keeping a ‘job’ ironically posing as a bohemian sitting at the bar at Vesuvios, a famous hangout in San Francisco’s North Beach, and it was Hedrick who turned the young Jerry on to acoustic blues [26] and Jack Kerouac’s On the Road and all its attendant attitudes. On the Road changed Garcia’s life forever. [27] Wally taught me that art is not only something you do, but something you are.” [28] While music soon became his main focus, Garcia never stopped drawing and painting.

Could you offer me any suggestions on how I can get this important information back in the webpage -- and how to prevent it from being deleted? Thank you -- --Art4em (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I forgot to attach your initial permission to me in 2007 in the [Jerry Garcia] discussion page for my addition [3]:

It looks good to me, especially since you've included a number of references. Thanks for suggesting this addition to the article on the Discussion page first, that's sometimes the best approach. My suggestion would be to go ahead and add this new material to the article. You could wait a while more and see if anyone else responds here, but in my opinion it would be fine to just go for it right now. Don't worry, if anyone doesn't like it they'll just edit it some more. — Mudwater 23:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

--Art4em (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Art4em. By going back over the history of the article, I found that the material you're talking about was removed, or rather, significantly reduced, with this edit, in 2008, about eight months after you added it. The simple answer to the question of how to get the information back into the page is that you can just put it back yourself. That is, you can copy the wiki-text from the old version of the article, then edit the current version of the article, and paste the rest of the paragraph back in there. So, feel free to do so. But, things may not be quite that simple. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and the content of articles is supposed to evolve based on the consensus of editors. You say that I gave permission for your changes, but actually I was just trying to be helpful. I can't give permission, because nobody owns or controls the article. If there's disagreement about an article's content, editors generally try to persuade each other, by discussing the article on the article's talk page, or just by using descriptive edit summaries when they make changes to the article. So, you can put that material back, but other editors may remove it again, or make other changes to it. As for the specific text we're talking about, I admit I have slightly mixed emotions about it. It does seem to place a lot of weight on the role of Wally Hedrick in Garcia's development. If this was a book length biography, that would no doubt be appropriate, but it's just an encyclopedia article, so I'm guessing that the editor who made the change felt that it was too long. That's the nature of Wikipedia. You can easily edit articles on one of the most popular web sites in the world, but other people can easily edit your edits. Also, here's a question: Do you have a personal or professional association with the late Mr. Hedrick, or with the San Francisco Art Institute? You don't have to answer, but another point about Wikipedia is that it's supposed to be very neutral and objective, and it's hard to be neutral and objective about one's own work or that of one's friends or associates. I hope that you find this answer helpful, and feel free to reply here for further discussion about this. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mudwater, thank you for your quick reply. It is greatly appreciated. Please forgive my long reply which I type out with appreciation to your generous / kind words and suggestions.

Even as an experienced wiki user, it is always great to be reminded of the wiki policy and philosophy. Thank you. I also am very sympathetic of your concerns, however, when I have such concerns I use the following formula: I remove myself by simply relying upon the source to do the talking. In this case, the source of my citations is none other than Jerry Garcia, and the "weight" (as you say) of those comments was measured by Mr. Garcia himself. I only work with citations from primary sources. As an equal partner in the Wiki experiment, I understand my neutral and objective viewpoint must never interfere with the subject and their comments. On the other hand, please let me add, I worry about people who attempt (after-the-fact) to counter-measure the measured responses from important primary sources -- especially in matters as significant as the one discussed above. I do not take Jerry's comments lightly -- especially when he is making an important point which he wanted others to remember about seminal experiences from his youth. The comments, references and quotes I cite from Mr. Garcia are clear; and I believe that Jerry (although I only met him twice) knew very well what he said and why he said what he said (even though that does not matter in Wiki).

In other words, changing and allowing-the-changes from the Jerry Garcia wikipage from "it was Hedrick who turned the young Jerry on to acoustic blues [26] and Jack Kerouac’s On the Road and all its attendant attitudes. On the Road changed Garcia’s life forever. [27] Wally taught me that art is not only something you do, but something you are.” [28]" into "Hedrick often encouraged Garcia in his drawing and painting skills.[29]" is not only simply wrong and inaccurate (for whatever editorial reason), but, more importantly, an injustice to a formidable relationship and life-changing experience that Garcia shared with Hedrick.

As for the question of who I am, I am happy to answer: I am just an avid reader of one of the best websites in the world -- and an occasional wiki editor (and infrequent wikipage originator) upon subjects which I am an expert. Additionally, as an expert on a few subjects, I cannot but be sympathetic with Timothy Messer-Kruse experiences from his recent February 12 Chronicle Review article [4] -- but such is life on wikipedia.

Alas, in the end, I think that the attempt of trying to assert "weight" to Jerry's own words and his own memory concerning his youthful and formidable experience would prove much too disruptive to the Jerry Garcia editorial board.

Thanks again for your time and assistance in this matter. It is greatly appreciated. --Art4em (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)