User talk:MrLinkinPark333/Archive 9

Kathleen Fox

Hi there, MrLinkinPark333, and all the best for 2019. I thought I should let you know that Kathleen Fox (aviator) has been deleted from the List of people from Montreal. I have left a word on Air.light's talk page.--Ipigott (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: It's okay. For one I'm not upset as I didn't make the article nor was the article deleted. It's just a list of people from a city. :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I Am a Rock" in Wrecking Crew article

I made a slight change at the Wrecking Crew article. I removed Simon & Garfunkel's "I Am a Rock" from the song list. I noticed a while back you added it, referencing it to its mention in the list at the back of Hartman's book. But, the list in Hartman's book is mistaken. "I Am a Rock" was recorded in New York using some of the same session musicians (and producer) Bob Dylan had worked with on Hwy. 61^[1](see discussion on this topic at Wrecking Crew talk page: "Selected recordings and chart placings" August 14, 2016) So, I made that slight change there. Hope you don't mind. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Garagepunk66: I don't mind you removing it but according to WikiProject Albums, songfacts is unreliable. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Though Songfacts may have sometimes its shortcomings, in this case they are reliable. They even go as far to mention the producer and musicians involved in the recoding of the song, whereas in Hartman's book the sessions are not even discussed in the actual text—the song only appears (accidently) in the list in the back of the book (lists in backs of books are often compiled by other people than the author). In 1965 Simon and Garfunkel were still mainly a New York-based act (though Simon had done some solo stuff in the UK) who were, as of yet, relatively unproven hitwise on the Columbia label. As relatively new artists at the label they nonetheless enjoyed access to Columbia's prestigious studios in New York, and when producer Tom Wilson convinced them to go electric, they had the chance to work with some of the best session players in town, some of whom had worked on Dylan's electric material recorded there earlier that year. At that time Columbia would not have flown an almost unknown New York act to LA to record, when they had such good resources available in New York. It wasn't until later (probably around the time of Bookends) that Simon and Garfunkel began to do some of their sessions in L.A. with members of the Wrecking Crew. It has always been pretty well-known that Simon and Garfunkel recorded the Sounds of Silence LP in New York with producers Bob Johnston and Tom Wilson (credited on the LP) and some of the session players that worked with Dylan on the Hwy 61 sessions. For instance if you listen to a song like Dylan's "Positively 4th Street", you'll hear a very similar backing to that on the electric version of "I Am a Rock." That's Bobby Gregg on drums and Al Kooper on organ in both of them. Neither Wilson or Johnston to my knowledge ever worked in LA with the Wrecking Crew (neither is mentioned in Hartman's book). So, I believe that in this instance Sognfacts got it right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ )">"I Am A Rock by Simon & Garfunkel". Song Facts. Retrieved January 19, 2019.

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of inductees in the International Space Hall of Fame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Collins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 at Women in Red

February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111

Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.

February events: Social Workers Black Women

February geofocus: Ancient World

Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman2019

Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe

Join the conversations on our talkpage:

Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative!

Hi MrLinkinPark333, Thank you for supporting the Sustainability Initiative with your signature! Maybe you know another Wikipedian who'd like to sign as well? :-) --Gnom (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019 at Women in Red

March 2019, Volume 5, Issue 3, Numbers 107, 108, 112, 113

Happy Women's History Month from Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:
March: Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen
Geofocus: Francophone Women
Continuing initiatives: Suffrage #1day1woman

Other ways you can participate:
Help us plan our future events: Ideas Cafe
Join the conversations on our talkpage
Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred
Subscription options: English language opt-in International opt-in Unsubscribe
--Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

#1Lib1Ref
New and expanded partners
Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
Global branches update
Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

article creations

Thank you for creating numerous articles, especially Diede de Groot and Wendy Williams (diver). For various Canadian and European articles; for biographies of women, sports players, and musicians; for helping out at the research exchange; for always being happy, kind, and civil- you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: I was not expecting this at all. Thank you! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An Australian certification, please

Hi... I believe you now have a PDF copy of Gavin Ryan's Australian chart book 1988–2010... would you mind checking a certification for me, please? It's for the album Push by Bros, which came out in 1988 and was certified in either 1988 or 1989 – I'm 99% certain from information I've found on the internet that it was certified double platinum, but I'd like an official confirmation, if that's possible. Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Hey there. Unfortunately Ryan doesn't have any accreditation for Push in the Bros. section. However, that doesn't necessary deny that it hadn't been certified at all as I've learnt that Ryan's book has missing certifications. The last week Push was on the Australian charts was 13 February 1989 so I recemmond asking User:Nqr9 to check the ARIA chart from that week to confirm the certification (or lack thereof). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do – thanks for checking anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: - Thanks for answering this @MrLinkinPark333:. As it turns out, Push does have an ARIA certification of 2x Platinum on the last (top 150) chart it appears in, which I've uploaded here - https://i.imgur.com/jDk0DXh.jpg (you can see P x 2 beside Push in the accred. table, at number 99). However, only the top 50 charts from this period have been published, and even then, they did not annotate certifications until April 1989. This is a chart I had to source (and pay for) directly from ARIA. A potential issue may be whether this constitutes original research. Unfortunately, the annual charts published on the ARIA website are also missing certifications from the late 80s/early 90s, and no certification is listed beside Push here, at number 9 - https://www.ariacharts.com.au/annual-charts/1988/albums-chart .Nqr9 (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: thanks for the reply and taking the time to dig those charts out. Well, that's inconvenient, and there doesn't seem to be a way round it, unless Ryan publishes an updated and corrected version of his book sometime. I wonder why ARIA won't publish certifications from 1988 to 1996 on their website? It seems Push was certified platinum in 1988, and double platinum in 1989, but there aren't even the official sources for the first platinum accreditation. Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Information on ARIA certs pre-1989 is generally scant. As I mentioned, they weren't annotated on the printed top 50 charts that were available in record stores until April 1989; and then there's the complicating factor of the levels dropping from 50k to 35k for gold, and 100k to 70k for platinum, in early 1989. From what I've seen, there were significantly fewer ARIA certifications awarded before 1989, and several singles and albums that you would expect have them (i.e. that peaked at #1, or spent a lot of time in the top 10), don't. As you can see on that chart I posted, Whispering Jack only has one platinum beside it then, despite having spent 24 weeks or thereabouts at #1 in 1986-7.Nqr9 (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: I totally understand, and it's not just Australia where the further back you go, the more inaccurate certifications become as an indicator of actual sales. It's sometimes difficult to explain that to younger editors who are used to automatic certifications for streaming, that in the past record companies had to go through a process of applying for certifications and then pay for an audit in order to gain them, so many of them never bothered. It has never been in question, for example, that Bridge over Troubled Water was the UK's best-selling album of the 1970s, with sales of around three million copies, but until about five years ago it only had a single platinum certification for 300,000 sales, before Sony suddenly added all the missing multiple certifications in one go. Richard3120 (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nqr9: Thanks for looking into it. I think it'd be OR if the source is not published. Too bad :/ --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]