User talk:HJensen/Archives/2008/February

My references in "Jimi Hendrix"

It would be far too time consuming for me to add the pages for every reference at the moment, as it took long enough just to get the books titles, authors, publishers and dates of publishing, having had several previous references removed along with the particular (accurate and verifiable) additions, (hopefully only due to my breaking the protocols around here, which I have, just today, dscovered). I have done this in several places though, but then there are many mistaken or innacurate assertions and other faults in this article, that have no references at all! Who can dispute that Hendrix was a bandleader and a record producer anyway? It's there in the very title of his group! and written for all to see on the LP's and singles he produced! Well, apart from when he calls himself "Heaven Research"Jameselmo (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix

I think describing Hendrix as only “ an American guitarist, singer and songwriter” does him a disservice. As from 1968 he was a record producer as well, producing the bulk of his USA No.1 LP Electric Ladyland, and all his recordings since that, he also produced Cat Mother and the All Night News Boys LP; Eire Apparents LP and single and co-produced Buddy Miles Express’ Electric Church* LP as well, and also, I’m sure you will agree he was noted bandleader

• I mistakenly wrote ‘Expressway To Your Skull’ before

Note: A letter by Hendrix :

February 5 Wednesday J.H. [initialled]

Page 4

Oh yes, almost forgot: please make clear to Mercury (contracts included or whatever legal means) that in due time the Buddy Miles Express new L.P. will be one of the biggest for Mercury and we are aIl (the group and myself) working very hard on it and it would seem to be honestly fair for my name alone to appear as producer and receive normal producer's fee. If there are hangups on Ann Tanzy's (sp. ?) side of the fence as far as whose name goes where she may well be represented on the L.P. as supervisor. I know a name on an L.P. jacket sounds like small tut, rather an ego thing, but one of my ambitions is to be a good producer and extend. Therfore that's one of the main themes in the idea of the name being there. I planned to finish to the bone of the whole L.P. as long as the necessary Papers and attitudes on both sides (Mercury and us) are together. If I could work with Buddy and group without being entirely hung up over this fact over those fat starving....Jameselmo (talk) 17:20,1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message (I didn't quite understand the last part; i.e., the purpose of the letter thing). Well, it is indeed cumbersome to reference almost everything, but that is what makes a difference between a mediocre and a good encyclopedic article. And Hendrix deserves a good article. I think it is way too undersourced now. And the fact that there are many unsourced statements in the article, is no argument for inserting other unsourced statements. Let us all try do do our best. Happy editing. --HJensen, talk 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the "Letter thing" (a transcription of a page of a letter from Hendrix to (probably) Mike Jeffery) was to illustrate the point that Hendrix himself considered it important that it be recorded that he was a record producer.

The point I was making about my references were that although I had no specific page No.'s on a lot of them they could all be verified from the information I gave, but were removed none the less, unlike the many wild and completely un-referenced statements and opinions in the article that remain.

Now I am beginning to see how it works, I will bide my time and hope that it improves.Jameselmo (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Hendrix article

Hi. I haven't read your new edits yet, but I noticed that you inserted a lot of {{fact}} tags. That is fine, but I don't think you need to have square brackets around the text you think need to be cited. It makes the article appear even more of a draft that it does already. Also, you may want to use the sandbox when editing (or copy the text into another editor). This will enable you to come off with fewer, but larger edits (remember edit summaries) thereby making it easier for other editors to assess what you have been doing (compared with now where you make numerous small edits within short time). Happy editing --HJensen, talk 21:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi der mr Jensen, i feel the brackets are extremely neccesary as they are really there to point out glaring, unproveable assertions, referenced or not, to fundamental errors within an almost(I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of "rock music journalese") acceptable text. After all it's always possible to come up with commercially warped, hyperbolic versions of the original quotations from CD notes, aimed at what the authors of said distortions obviously percieve as a shallow, easily manipulated market ("Never give a sucker an even break" author Barnum blah blah etc.) Most of the stuff in brackets is nonsense , I mean check out the bit on Hendrix going to see King Creole in Paris, it's basically gibberish! I have no desire to puff up this article and have subsequently only made small changes to the text, as my earlier larger ones were only my way of explaining the faults and giving the information to correct these to whoever might be the editors/contributors (hence the "or" comments and not knowing how to reply to editors comments made to me on wiki - I thought there was some hidden e-mail type thing!). The important credit "bandleader" is unsourceable directly, although understood implicitly since he arrived in England in late 66, no serious commentator on Hendrix could logically dispute this. He chose the musicians, he sacked them. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 February 2008

I share you concerns, but those are not an argument for making up own styles like inserting brackets. The fact tag is sufficient. The brackets will just have to be reverted making other editors slightly annoyed over your otherwise productive edits. --HJensen, talk 09:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, apologies, and also apologies for my mixed up edit about the Monterey/Miami guitars. Although references to the smashed guitar with painted flowers and dedication from Saville theatre are frequently mixed up with the single piece of guitar from Monterey, both of which have been on display at experience music project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2008

Ah! at last found it Univibes 27 pages 31-34, it appears zappa's/dweezil's guitar is the one Jimi burned in UK Astoria. there is no contemporary evidence of hendrix burning a guitar at miami, it seems frank being given this burnt guitar in miami just assumed that jimi had torched it there. It was he that had it renovated by Rex Bogue and had a new neck fitted and some electronic gizmos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Jameselmo (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So some entries although pointed out that they have no merit and are completely unreferenced & bogus can stay because they might one day find a reference from any old rubbish as long as it's published in some form. Is that what you're telling me? While my referenced ones from well researched and recognised sources are just removed without duscussion. since i found this page there has been no discussion of any of the points i've raised, it takes two to discuss. This article is not going to improve if historical sequence is just jumbled up to suit the "style" of particular contributions. And blatantly ridiculous pieces like the bowler/ trilby nonsense allowed to persist.Jameselmo (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. That some bogus material exists in an article is no excuse for not removing other bogus. Nothing is "allowed" to stay by some magic force! Wikipedia is continuously involving, and we have to proceed in steps. I remove bogus material when I see it (i.e., mainly non-sourced speculation). It does not rule out that there are bogus I overlook, and/or have not the time to delete or edit. Also, just because something wrong has been along for a long time does not make it a precedent for other crap to be left alone. Clearly, it is then a matter of judgement whether one removes stuff or tags it. The latter is typically done when you as editor know that a source can be dug up, but the tag is left there as a reminder for youself/other editors and as a cautionary warning for readers. Keep up the good work. (I hope not that I have deleted, without discussion, anything you have sourced?).--HJensen, talk 16:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There is much bogus material here that IS "allowed" to stay by some magic force! there is obviously interested parties involved in maintaining much un-referenced and/or flowery/Americanised rock journalese, hyperbolic prose nonsense here. so don't patronise me!89.241.204.118 (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)'

Who are you? And what have I said that is patronizing? I am just trying to explain myself and be helpful. Sorry if that came down the wrong way. (Furthermore, I haven't any knowledge about "interested parties involved", so that I cannot comment on.) --HJensen, talk 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay no trivia, how about just leaving out stuff that never happened ie Les paul NOT meeting hendix. I mean where's Devon Wilson? a major part of Jimi's life, from when he returned to USA in 67 until his death, the only woman that recorded with him and featured unambiguously in some of his later songs and who openly challenged him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We should never write things that did not happen, of course. If you can find sources on the importance of Devon Wilson, then add something about her influence. Otherwise not, as that would be original research which is not allowed.--HJensen, talk 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Kenneth_Carlsen.jpg

Replaceable fair use

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kenneth Carlsen.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)