User talk:Moproducer

St. Louis-style pizza

Moproducer, I would appreciate if you would reply to my comment regarding the many pizzerias mentioned on Talk:St. Louis-style pizza#Pizzerias; namely, that my deletions have been reverted in spite of some questionable notability and other issues. Thanks. --Millbrooky (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ozark Jubilee

Hello Moproducer,

Thank you for your recent contributions to Ozark Jubilee. I have a suggestion and a question, please, for your consideration:

The suggestion is to move the parenthetical comment in the lead section regarding Nashville's business and revenues to the section, Red Foley and the Rise of Springfield. That section is focused on the "competition" and I think it would be more appropriate there than in the lead sentence of the article, which is primarily about the program and not the strategy.

The question concerns adding "arguably." By that, do you mean that it's arguable that the Jubilee was the centerpiece of the strategy, or that it's arguable that it was Ralph Foster's intent to supplant Nashville? If you mean the Jubilee, I suppose that is arguable; but it would certainly seem to be the centerpiece. If you mean that it was arguably Foster's strategy, I haven't come across anything in my research to support that; in fact, the predominant theme of every contemporaneous article about the program is that it was very much Foster's public strategy.

I welcome your views on these matters, and thank you for your consideration.

RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Moproducer,

I have been hoping to please receive a reply to my comments above. I would politely note that it is considered good Wiki etiquette to respond. I would understand if you choose not to reply, but I would then like to make my suggested changes.

Thank you,

RadioBroadcast (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RadioBroadcast, I rarely have time to use Wikipedia for personal gratification, so I am sorry that you have been so bothered by this. In response to "The suggestion is to move the parenthetical comment in the lead section regarding Nashville's business and revenues to the section, Red Foley and the Rise of Springfield", it would appear that someone has taken care of that already...perhaps yourself?

In response to: "The question concerns adding "arguably.": There's no proof that Ralph Foster was ever trying to supplant Nashville, and as a 35-year veteran of the entertainment and broadcast industry (and a former resident of southwest Missouri), I can tell you that it is absolutely ludicrous to make a claim that Springfield was, or ever has been, poised to take over Nashville. The billions of dollars routinely generated by the conglomerate music industry around Nashville make the millions produced in Springfield's most productive year(s) look pretty insignificant.

Let's be honest: Springfield is a nice place. At one time, it produced a number of talented people, nearly all of whom found their way to Nashville, New York, L.A., London, etc. It drew attention for semi-national and national radio, back when radio programming was live and difficult to produce. It even gave a home to a couple of nationally-aired TV series...which drew their audiences, largely, from Nashville-based talent. Mr. Foster was a good businessman, but he couldn't, if he were in his right mind, ever have dreamed of "taking over Nashville" with just the aforescribed resume. Whatever his dreams may have been, it certainly didn't happen, and Nashville hardly even noticed.

Go to Nashville, spend several weeks looking at the entire music machine that covers three counties, and you'll agree.

moproducer

Dear Moproducer,

Thank you very much for your reply, which I appreciate. I do not believe the move I suggested was done; in keeping with Wiki etiquette, I would not have done so before asking (I will make that change).

Regarding Ralph Foster's strategy, I wonder if we don't really agree? You are undoubtedly correct that Springfield then (or now) could not in any way be compared with today's Nashville, but would I find it surprising if Nashville in 1956 generated even one billion dollars—please bear in mind that any comparison is with Nashville of 53 years ago.

Our disagreement, however, may instead center around whether Foster intended to compete with Nashville. I would submit that was his intent, at minimum. If you would agree, then the issue (to me) would not seem to be whether he succeeded, or even had a chance of succeeding (although I believe the goal of any competition is to win). It is not even an issue that his strategy failed. But even if it had worked, I have not suggested it would have resulted in, as you said, "taking over Nashville." Any number of alternate futures, of course, would have been possible; perhaps Springfield would have been a close or even distant second. The term I used was "supplant."

Again, I appreciate your reply, and look forward to your thoughts on my comments; I'm afraid, however, I cannot say I have any affiliation with the entertainment industry, I'm just a 40-year veteran of the broadcast industry and a former resident of southwest Missouri.

Sincerely, RadioBroadcast (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RadioBroadcast.

It's your webpage and do with it whatever...etiquette notwithstanding, you seem to be bent on promoting your opinion with minimal factual support. This, however, is typical of most of Wikipedia; carry on as you wish.

The Nashville of 1956 was either home or a significant hub for nearly a dozen major record labels and hundreds of minor ones. RCA Victor was breaking ground for its legendary Studio B and corporate offices, which would open in 1957 under Operations Manager (and later VP) Chester B. Atkins, a frequent Jubilee guest and "find" of Ralph Foster's. Literally thousands of publishing companies - big, small and in-between - graced the buildings of greater Nashville. Ralph Foster's own Nashville enterprise shared office space with three other now-forgotten operations. The mother church of all country singers, The Grand Ol' Opry, was in its 32cd year on WSM radio, its 13th year in the Ryman Auditorium, had been broadcast internationally for twelve years, and featured the best and brightest of Nashville every week. Buses daily carried hordes of fans on tours of the homes of the stars, with thousands making the pilgrimage - cross-country and even overseas - to pay homage in what was already being called "Music City, USA"...making Nashville's tourism, hotel and food & beverage business alone the envy of most of the South. Belmont University offered curricula in production, with internships in major studios. The old-timers tell me that even in the early 1950s, the streets, clubs, dives, cheap hotels and flop-houses were crowded with guitar pickin', songwritin', starstruck kids.

Use the word "supplant" if you wish; change it to "scratch", "dent", "affect", whatever you will. Springfield had not a chance in a million of threatening Nashville. Even the powers that put the Ozark Jubilee on the network had their bets hedged in Nashville operations and productions. And when the Jubilee and all of its iterations ran their courses, the networks left and never returned...but they did go to Nashville.

I have a lot of respect for the late Ralph Foster and all that he did; certainly, the late Chet Atkins was forever grateful to him, and I have no doubt that Mr. Atkins did whatever he could to advance the ambitions of Mr. Foster. Unless he suffered from some severe delusion, I can't believe that Foster ever looked at Springfield as even so much as a Nashville suburb. I wish I could say that all your claims were/are true, as I am a Missouri native with nine generations behind me, mostly in the Ozarks, and take tremendous pride in my heritage. But my Ozarkian roots make me a strict realist, and I do no service to my beloved home state by altering historical facts. So let's end the discussion here, and have fun with your Wiki page.

moproducer

Dear Moproducer,

Thank you as always for your comments. However, as you appear to be an experienced Wikipedian, I hope I need not remind you that far from it being "my webpage," Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article.

With regard to your belief I am "bent on promoting [my] opinion with minimal factual support," I certainly appreciate your viewpoint. So as a fellow native of The Show-me State, I researched several contemporaneous reliable sources that do support the article's content, as follows:

• The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 5, 1956: "Today, country music has become big business and Springfield has become the recognized center of the country music world. In fact, it is generally agreed in television, recording and radio circles, that Springfield, now a city of 90,000, has shaken Nashville, Tennessee, home of The Grand Ole Opry and long-time mecca of hillbilly musicians, to its very foundations."

• The Kansas City Star, January 29, 1956: "Foster's business associates told him his idea was wild. But he persisted, and today Springfield is known as television's country music capital."

• Business Week, March 10, 1956: "The first step in [Foster's] campaign to wrangle a national hookup was to lure Red Foley from the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, Tennessee. Since then, Springfield has gone a long way toward replacing Nashville as the recognized center of the country music world."

• Coronet, April, 1957: "Springfield is nipping at the heels of Nashville, Tennessee, home to the Grand Ole Opry and the long-established capital of country music."

As I hope you would understand, in view of Wikipedia policy that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; and, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed," I have removed the adverb "arguably." I have added an inline citation for that statement, and I very much appreciate you prompting me to make sure it was verified. I have also used the word "challenge" instead of "supplant," which I hope you may agree is a more accurate term.

Regarding your comments that your "Ozarkian roots make me a strict realist, and I do no service to my beloved home state by altering historical facts," it is important to remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." This is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.

Finally, with regard to your characterization of my motivation (and that of other Wikipedians) that I am "bent on promoting my opinion," I would note Wikipedia's policy to "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia."

I hope our discussion has increased your understanding of Wikipedia, and I wish you all the best in your future contributions. I remember Nashville, like Springfield, as a nice place, too!

Sincerely,

RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Dear RadioBroadcast,

I appreciate your efforts, but your supporting references are weak. Two of your sources are from the state of Missouri and have a vested interest in ad revenue and readership; one is a defunct, third-tier display tabloid, leaving one - and only one - lonely reference from Business Week. Had Springfield's challenge to Nashville been the reality you claim, the volume of legitimate media content would still be fodder for discussion. Music business news has made columns in nearly all the trade magazines since the 1940s, and mentions of Springfield - especially in the context of supplanting Nashville -- are as rare as hen's teeth.

You claim I am violating Wikipedia rules by pointing out the obvious, and I'm sorry that it bothers you, but you are trying to tie-up a very large package with very thin thread. My only purpose is to be patently clear and objective about any claims made in your webpage. If that is a violation of an ethical code, send me up and have it your way. Please don't be so subjective as to construe my comments as a personal attack; I seem to be able to withstand your responses.

moproducer

Dear MoProducer,

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments. I do not believe, though, you are yet understanding the Wikipedia policy mentioned earlier: that "the threshold for inclusion...is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

You do not think the statement regarding Springfield is true, based on your "objectivity," which of course you are fully entitled to, but it is not relevant (nor permitted) on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

What is relevant is that the material has been published by a reliable source. My sources clearly meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability, regardless of your view of them (and I fail to see why the fact that Coronet is out of business matters; are articles in The Saturday Evening Post or Look magazine any less-reliable because they are now defunct?)

You do seem willing to accept Business Week as a reliable source, and that's all that is required. The bottom line here is that I have documented this statement with a source you (apparently) accept. If you can find a reliable published source that contradicts the statement regarding Springfield, then you should cite it. That's the way Wikipedia works. You must challenge content with "published, reliable sources," not what you believe to be true. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors.

What's puzzling to me is your continued inferences that this is my opinion. I had no preconceived views on the matter until I read the references I cited; I am merely repeating what these sources have published, it is not my opinion.

I do sincerely apologize if I misinterpreted your characterization of my motive as a personal attack. Once again, however, it is not "my webpage." Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively.

Thank you as always. RadioBroadcast (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

RadioBroadcast, that's what I find amusing about Wikipedia, and perhaps it's a policy that should be reviewed. A lot of pages here are reinforced by sketchy references; but as you say, they fall within the boundaries of Wikipedia's "criteria". Have fun.

moproducer

H. Dale Jackson

Rather vague edit summaries, lack of ref's that match up, several changes made in a short period that did not appear productive.. And it looks like the IP removed a ref.. That's just at a first glance.. If you disagree, do something about it. I did not warn the user because I was sure it was in good faith. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ozark Jubilee lead

Dear MoProducer,

I noticed that you have tagged the word "strategy" as a peacock term in the lead sentence of Ozark Jubilee. While I appreciate your viewpoint, I'm not sure it is applicable. You have linked it to the definition of "Words...often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information."

Here, the phrase "centerpiece of a strategy for Springfield, Missouri to challenge Nashville, Tennessee as America's country music capital" is attributed (to Business Week), and it also imparts or plainly summarizes verifiable information. In fact, I added the citation specifically in response your earlier concerns about this sentence. The cited quote is "...Springfield has gone a long way toward replacing Nashville as the recognized center of the country music world." I would suggest it did not reach that status in a vacuum; that instead it was the result of a series of planned activities which can accurately be described as strategic.

I will look forward to your comments, as I may have misinterpreted your intent.

Thank you, RadioBroadcast (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mo Producer:

Absent a response, it would be my intent to remove the "peacock" tag in this instance.

Thank you,

RadioBroadcast (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Multi-image

A tag has been placed on Multi-image, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your reasoning on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Multi-Image (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Director, GM, Producer, Montage, Maritz and Multitrack

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I'm Loriendrew. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Glenn Frey, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)