User talk:Steve Pastor

Hi Steve. A lot's been happening to this. It'll never be perfect. I'm glad a few new contributors are on board and that you keep your oar in. Length is no problem right now, given other similar biogs. Rikstar (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Steve if you get time go to www.howstuffworks"Elvis Presley Biography" it is a very well written article and I'm very fussy and hard to please when it concerns this entertainer. If you get time let us know what you think, in particular the 1956 period. Thank you. --Jaye9 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Steve,I've given you the wrong link, go to entertainment.howstuffworks.com/elvis-presley-biography.htm/printable-443k,heading Howstuffworks"Elvis Presley Biography". This is the biograhpy I would like you to look at,as she talks about the Milton Berle Show,The Steve Allen Show and The Ed Sullivan Show,amongst other topics. For example the lady writes:

"For years people have wondered why Elvis was censored during his third appearance on Sullivan's show. The simplest and most probable explanations is that Sullivan received negative criticism about Elvis' earlier appearances. Other,more outrageous explantions include the theory that the Colonel forced Sullivan to apologise publicly for remarks he'd made about Elvis to the press the previous summer and the waist-up-only order was Sullivan's way of getting back at Parker.

The wildest explantion was offered by a former director of the Ed Sullivan Show,who said that during his second appearance,Elvis put a cardboard tube down the fron of his trousers and madipulated it to make the studio audience scream. To avoid accurrence of that behavior,Sullivan supposedly insisted on the above-the-waist coverage for Elvis' final appearnace. None of these explanations offers any real insight into Sullvans' motivations but all add to the folklore surrounding this event,thereby enhancing Elvis' image as a nororious rock'n'roller" --Jaye9 (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I always tell people to watch all 3 of the Sullivan shows on which Elvis appreared. It is available on dvd and used to be in the Elvis article as a reference. You would think that you would notice something like that. Elvis DID shake his legs while Sullivan talked in show #2. But I didn't see any "cardboard tube". Show #3 was the only show in which Elvis was shown only from the "waist" up. But he sang mostly ballad like songs on that segment. This text used to be in the article - . On the third Sullivan show, except for a short section of “Hound Dog” included in a medley, Elvis sang slow paced ballads and a gospel song. ^[1] The fact that Presley was only shown from the waist up on this last broadcast led to many second hand accounts that Sullivan had “censored” Elvis. .^[2] 1In spite of any misgivngs he may have had, as Elvis stood beside him near the end of this broadcast, Sullivan declared, "This is a real decent, fine boy. We've never had a pleasanter experience on our show with a big name than we've had with you... you're thoroughly all right." ^[3]Steve Pastor (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Please look at that page and let me know if there is a quick fix "rollback" solution where I could easily finish what I started. I want to preserve the unreferenced material on the talk page, remove the tag, and get my references back in. Thanks. Steve Pastor (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• You shouldn't move article content to talk pages. I don't see a point where you've added references in the article. If you want, you can simply cut and paste the material back in then add your sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I think you're not happy with the Sullivan section in the Elvis article. Neither am I, mainly because I sense your dissatisfaction - I've just tried to clean it up and read OK, without upsetting or getting into edit warring with previous editors. The existing text is well cited, but it obviously reads, as a whole, not like how you'd want it. Could you post your own version of how you think the "Sullivan experience" should read, on my talk page, the Elvis page, etc., for comment? It's only a a paragraph or two in the entire article. I want to know what you think, how you see the whole thing, backed up with refs. of course. You've made reference to how it used to read in parts, as if this was better, but I sense you feel strongly about this - given your dance background, access to all the Sullivan material, and all - but I'm not clear on how you think the thing should be as a whole. I've been busy with other things, but if I get any positive feedback from you about improving this from your perspective, I'll help/comment any way I can. Many thanks for your time. Rikstar (talk) 13:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I hope I've managed to copy this link OK. . This is the 2min 4secs version I found on YouTube. I'm not sure if this is edited, but it's a whole lot better than the one in the Hound Dog article. If it is OK, could you add it to the article? Glad you're still around and making comments after everything you've had to put up with. Rikstar (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Just found this , a 2min 35secs version. Has extra instrumets dubbed onto it. Rikstar (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Rikstar, This is the one - . The second one is synced pretty well, but you're right, it's another recording with added instrumentation. Note the "slow mo" at the end so that Elvis's moving foot/leg stays "in time" with teh music. One of the reasons Presley bombed in Vegas in 56 was that their sound was "tinny", as one wag wrote. (It was the Sinatra days back then). Congrats on finding this. Let me know if you want me to do the replacements. Finally, people can see for themselves! Steve Pastor (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, AT for me means Argentine Tango! I'll check it out when I have time. Steve Pastor (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize that this person is a spammer, who has been blocked for using a proxy.. Just thought I'd tell you Vandalism Destroyer 00:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was being polite. Hey, I LIKE Argentine Tango! and anything that allows me to write it...Steve Pastor (talk)

Good call on those deletions from the see also list. It is amazing how quickly those lists attract garbage! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Good articles, just like liberty, require eternal vigilance. I used to use Brylcream, but it doesn't belong in that article.Steve Pastor (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree! Now, as to the message you left on my talk page: The biggest thing that needs to be done, as I said on the article talk page, is turning the plethora of external links in the text into legitimate references. This would not be difficult to do, but certainly time-consuming, 'cause there are a great many of them. I am not familiar with the website that is repeatedly linked, so can you tell me if it is reputable? If that is done, it will be a huge improvement. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Granted per your request. Please see WP:RBK for instructions on use or feel free to ask me! Take it slow, learn more as you go. Cheers!--VS ^talk 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Bill Black hams it up.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you and yours a fun filled Christmas and I look forward to editing with you again in 2009.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thought you should know I've been cheatin' on ya! I've done some severe pruning on Elvis, see. I've tired of all the bloat an' crap and cut the article down by half, and added images. It's kind of a bare bones thing now with a bit more latitude. Any thoughts appreciated. Rikstar(talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I found the spelling error using Lupin's Antivandal tool. Great edits, by the way, but I am sorry to say that I know nothing about "Texas Hop". Cheers!

--Wyatt915✍ 20:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Maasai Land.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, just wanted to apologise if you thought that a comment of mine on the Elvis talk page was directed at you. For some reason my reply to Onefortyone is listed below one of your comments and it might, to some people, look as if it's a reply to you. I've explained on the Elvis talk page just below it, but felt it appropriate to offer a personal response to yourself, also. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve,

I saw a show about Ed Sullivan and it showed interviews of people who had been guests on his show,etc etc. I got the idea that Ed Sullivan was a very powerful man at the time and he could either make you or break you. One particular gentleman stands out in my mind. He was a jewish commedian and Sullivan had accused him of giving him the ups after his perfermance,he said he didn't. Because of this incident,this man said Sullivan made sure his didn't work again in the business for years to come,that is a real misuse of power and you could talk about what happened to the "Doors" as well.

I've viewed the vidoes you speak of and I carn't see anything of whatever. I saw an interview of Scotty Moore and he was saying that Elvis had said to him,why are all the girls screaming at. Scooty has said that Elvis did not wear underwear and with the type of trouseers he wore,things naturally moved around down there. All very innocent.

It's a wonder that Byron Raphel hadn't attached himself to Ed Sullivan show as well,instead he would say with his interview with Nash,that Elvis unzipped his pants and dry humped RCA's Nipper on stage,before thousands in October 28,1957 show in Las Angeles.

Were do all these rumors come from,I have no idea. But like rumors and gossips,they have a way of manifesting themselves and I believe it is human nature for people to attach themselves and they will, when they had nothing really that much to do with Presley in the first. They do and say these things to make themselves feel more important in the scale of things. I say let them,but it has no place or importance for an Encyclopedia Ariticle,it just draws away from what is important and that is the performances of those shows.

I believe that Ed Sullivan was concerned about all the controversary surrounding Elvis's wiggling,not toilet rolls,coke bottles etc that came much later. I like to see an article written during the fifties that state these stories,of thes rumors and gossip and I can tell you there are none. Lets just stick to what makes sence,not this trivial nonsense.--Jaye9 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve,please note,these comments are not in any way directed at you. I'm just expressing my frustrations that's all. I only see you as someone who has alot of knowledge and insight and passion for these performances. I'm all for that. This is exactly what this article needs,knowledge and passion.--Jaye9 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again Steve,as I'm just about to rush off,I only had time to take a quick look at the Elvis Information Network website and I noticed a recent story they have titled "Elvis photograher Richard Weede EIN Interview". As this story pertains to the Ed Sullivan Shows. Just thought you may like to have a look at it.--Jaye9 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaye. Here is what I found "EIN: I like the idea of the large size canvas print as well as the look of the framed set of "Making History" behind the scenes shots.This period was soon after the Milton Berle Show when Elvis’ sexual antics on TV had caused a furore amongst Middle-America and there’s a great series of photos you took of Ed Sullivan deep in conversation with Elvis. Do you have any idea what the talk was about?

RW: I alluded to these pictures a little earlier. Sullivan was standing in front of Elvis, on stage at a break of some sort. They were quite close, but I am certain it was at this time Ed was reminding Elvis that this was a family show and he wanted no part of the hip swinging and suggestive movements that had given rise to such negative comments from the first show. I think the picture I have of Elvis rolling his eyes up really says it all. I could put numerous captions with that picture. In Elvis’s next appearance, Sullivan simply had the cameras crop him from the waist up." Well he's flat out wrong that Elvis only appeared twice, and he is GUESSING what they talked about. Elvis DID pull a fast one on camera with the leg shaking while Sullivan spoke to the audience, and that may have finally gotten Ed. Nothing about a "device", I note. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve,found something recently on the MTV.com website titled "Elvis Presley Shakes It for ED Sullivan" Wake Up Video by Kyle Anderson 09/09/09. Hope you don't mind me sending this to you,but when I see anything on Ed Sullivan,I think of you,as I view you as someone who wants the section of the article on the "Ed Sullivan Shows" to be as accurate as possible. I'll also point out,that when I asked a certain editor,if he could find me any statements made by Ed Sullivan,The Jordonaires,Scotty Moore and DJ Fontana,about them mentioning any device,as they were there at the time. My question was not answered by that editor.

What really interested me about this article was,as you will read,it states that these shows of Elvis on the Ed Sullivan show were viewed by 82% of the total viewing audience,if correct I thought that might be an interesting bit of imformation to add,what do you think? Here's what they had to say:

"One of the more controversial moments in music on television happened on this day in 1956,when Elvis Presley performed for the first time on "The Ed Sullivan Show",Sullivan famously bristed at the idea of having Elvis on his show (he thought Presley's whole idiom was entirely too sexual and Sullivan considered his show as a family-friendly program),but he ultimately caved to popular demand (as well as a rating war with Steve Allen),Presley performed a handful of tunes on that episode,including "Don't Be Cruel" and his then-new single "Love Me Tender" (the lead track from the movie he was filming at the time). Though the mythology states that Elvis was only shot above the waist during his performances,his entire body was visible throughout most of the songs. The gambit paid off for Sullivan,as the episode attracted over 60 million viewers,which at the time as around 82 percent of the total viewing audience - a truly staggering number."--Jaye9 (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found TV A Go Go to have the most thorough account of what was seen on the shows, and what is on the public record. It's like the author actually watched the kinescopes of the shows, which are of course now avaiable on dvd. What I have seen with my own eyes, and have included images of in the Sullivan article, is now in print so I have a written reference. Thank goodness for that. On the other topic, I have deleted the "junk" stuff from this and other sections repeatedly. I don't understand why other editors who have complained about it remaining in the article don't do the same. It's pretty frustrating to see it come back again and again. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

TV A Go Go states that 82.7% of tv viewers in America watched the 1st Sullivan apearance. I'm thinking MTC.com is quoting this book without crediting it. It's on page 16, so would be same ref as material I recently added. Steve Pastor (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I totally agree with you that the way I had worded the article to read "...sales believed to be in excess of one billion..." fitted into the article well, and was backed up by some very strong references. Sadly, soon after you reverted back to that version, user Cliffrichard reverted back to their own version. I've altered theirs slightly (their own references suggest sales easily over 600 million) and hope that they accept that as the fairest level. Of course, if you wish to revert it again back to what I originally had then feel free, I don't have a problem with that at all. I've explained to Cliff on their talkpage that some other editors may also disagree with their version. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sullivan Elvis Ready Move2.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Steve, please take a look at this discussion User talk:DigbyDalton#Johnny & Dorsey Burnette and tell me what you think about that. I need your opinion. Thanks in advance, The yodeling cowboy (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you still interested in that article? I just started a discussion, but I don't think people are actively contributing to it anymore... noticed you used to. Sancho 16:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As one of the significant contributors to the Chuck Berry article you might be interested that I have nominated it to be listed as a WP:Good article. There is often a delay between nominating and somebody being free to review an article; however, you may wish to keep an eye on it to see how the review progresses and perhaps help out on any issues if you feel you are able. SilkTork *^YES! 10:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Steve, Thank you for your nice invitation. Sure, I'd be glad to help if I can. BTW, it was not me who (based on your comment) recently changed its rating -- although it currently has a "C" rating. I think it could easily become a "B". If you click on "quality scale" in one of the beige project boxes on the discussion page it will take you to the criteria. I can go over it and clean up style, punctuation, etc. As for the lists, why not just put them in their own list article? RadioBroadcast (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I raise a couple of points? The fact is that the terms "rhythm and blues" and "R&B" were specifically used, a lot, in Britain in the 1960s, to describe the music that bands like The Yardbirds and The Who liked and sought to play. Terms like "beat music" and "blues" - which from your side of the Atlantic would be "British blues" - did not mean the same thing. So, I think that much of the text that you've taken out should be reinstated - and, probably more importantly, there should be a (very brief) reference in the intro to the use of the terms specifically in Britain in the 1960s. I think that culture-specific use of the term(s) is relevant. I also think that the text you've taken out on ska, and on later influence of what were called "R&B bands" in Britain in the 70s, should be reinstated (with refs, obviously) - they were notable trends/genres using the same terms, but in slightly different senses. As a general point, I'd argue that what we have in the article following your edits is too US-centric. Obviously (see my list of articles created if you like) I know enough about the history of the music that you, in the US, call "rhythm and blues" and "R&B" - but the way those terms were used in other parts of the world, particularly Britain (and also Jamaica) was slightly different, definitely notable, and should be mentioned and explained in the article covering those terms. I'll await your comments before making changes - it's rare for me to disagree with any of your edits! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As User:Sabrebd has made a similar point to me, I suggest we continue this conversation back at the article talk page (though I'm about to go offline for a few hours - sorry!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Maasai Land.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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steve, What did you mean for "Still no reference for Maritime provinces???" and why you removed the paragraph from the lead? SJ (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Steve. Thank you for your candid comments. I know very little about rockabilly and it's origins. From what I've read elsewhere, it does seem unfair to state that Presley was an originator; popularizer, early performer of, etc. seem more accurate. I wasn't involved in discussion about this point (as far as I can remember) because of my ignorance of the subject. I'm not sure how the actual discussion went, or how you felt let down by it. Seems to me you raise a valid point, one that should be raised again. But then we come to the 'guard-dog' business.

The way I see it, for a very long time the Presley article was not progressing towards FA status. There was a real lull in the middle of last year regarding edits, enthusiasm and basic discussion. It needed people who had knowledge, who knew wiki style and citing inside out to shake the article into life. I think that happened when DocKino and PL290 arrived on the scene. I admit that I was taken aback by their speed of editing. I certainly wasn't part of any 'pack' of guard-dogs who took over the article and I don't see myself as one now. All I could do, and have done ever since, is read posts and edits by them and then say whether I agreed. If new contributors make suggestions, I also say if I agree with them, and why. I could easily have claimed that Doc and PL had 'taken over', or were jealously guarding the article and making me feel redundant - but I just didn't.

The reality was that Doc and PL were moving the article very quickly in the right direction. I don't think their efforts can be over-estimated, but they didn't suffer fools gladly either. Doc appears to have checked out the history of 141's involvement and I guess he wasn't prepared to put up with any BS. As a result I think it's true that Doc went over the top in some comments about 141. BUT: I have to weigh any views I have about that with the pain I feel from years of frustration and disruption caused by 141. I stayed neutral on that particular dispute involving Doc and 141, but if 141 tried any of his arsenal of tactics to get inappropriate edits included, or to cause disruption on the talk pages, then I responded. It is true that others noted the treatment dished out to 141. But if anyone expected me to bend over backwards to defend 141 after what I and others - including your good self - have been through, they can think again. And I wouldn't expect that stance to get me labelled a "guard-dog" either.

What is very unfortunate is the way contributors like Santamoly have wanted to make changes, but they have expressed themselves in a way that insults the efforts of other editors. If those editors happen to have been the ones who put in hours and hours of editing and research and achieved Featured status, perhaps they are justified in being defensive. The point is, even they cannot maintain opposition against edits that are valid, but that validity needs to be proved. I have asked Santamoly on several occasions to please specify changes he would like, but he hasn't. He makes vague comments about Presley's army achievements and his collection of cars. And then he says things like "none of you have seen any of his films". This isn't helping him.

Conversely, I recently made the specific suggestion that the pronunciation of his surname be discussed and clarified in the article. And that's what happened. On that basis I think, Steve, that if you have a valid claim about the rockabilly edit, you could raise it, and if your claim is backed up with good sources, it would get a fair hearing. I would certainly back you up, but how much would depend on subsequent discussion.

I'm pretty clear in my own mind that someone or some people have to keep a very careful eye on the Presley article because it would definitely deteriorate very quickly if they didn't. I'm also clear that anyone can keep an eye on it, or make changes, BUT they have to know what they are talking about. Recent edits by newbies don't seem to me to have been well thought out, but I note how in one case this was patiently explained in detail by DCGeist -presumably another who could be labelled a guard-dog. If any such 'guardians' overstep the mark, there surely are remedies in wikipedia's policies to deal with it. However, the tone of such responses is important, and I wouldn't want any newbie put off by curt dismissals. I wonder: how many newbies were put off by 141's presence!

Cheers, Steve, and thanks again for your appreciative comments. Memphis left me with mixed feelings; I had a fascinating time there, but it was also where I lost my passport...:( Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Another contributor noted on September 3rd, here, that some of the content in Blue Moon of Kentucky had been copied verbatim from a previously published source, here. As it seems that the content was placed by you, you should have been notified of this, but the contributor who tagged the issue may not have noticed who placed the content. Are you able to verify that this content is public domain? It may be, but on Wikipedia we only presume content is public domain if it is published before January 1, 1923. Otherwise, we need to verify it. I'll relist the article for another week at Wikipedia:Copyright problems to allow time for you to address these concerns. Without some reasonable indication of PD, the content will need to be removed, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Per your note at my talk page, here, I have deleted the pasted content from this article.

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Steve Pastor. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, is it possible to get your input on this matter? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_15#Reception_of_country_music. Thanks, Seniortrend (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. There should not have been much controversy in putting this through the Speedy Deletion tab, but it appears that it had gone through that and survived before. The author of this also appears to be an administrator. Thanks, Senior Trend 01:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seniortrend (talk • contribs)

Steve, I agree this section should be expanded. I'll try to work on it soon. RadioBroadcast (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Details and citations from the LA Times added! RadioBroadcast (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It says he was to be paroled on February 22, 1969, but then says he was furloughed from the prison hospital unit at Vacaville on November 23, 1969, nine months after he was supposed to be out on parole. This obviously doesn't make sense. Can someone clarify this? Gil gosseyn (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

See corrected year in recent edit. Thanks. Steve Pastor (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry to take awhile, I just got your message. I have to smile, my dad who claimed he hated THAT music always listened to Spade Cooley! Have you checked out the Molly Bee article? I have some good sources there. Going to move your note to my talk page and ponder it. Anything more specific to look for? Hadn't thought of it in a Sociological perspective, I just grew up there for the good times! ;-) Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey, got your note. I actually know almost nothing about this subject. I reverted the edit I did simply because it was unsourced, awkwardly placed, and had horrible spelling. I was not commenting on the quality of the information just the suitability on a technical level for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sorry I can't be of more help. SQGibbon (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As best I can determine, "Old Union" snuck into the article in this edit by an IP editor on 24 September 2010. There was no new source supplied for the change. These two localities seem to be only about 22 miles apart, and it may only be a matter of semantics. But, as you know, the currently cited source does not support the text, and I can find no reliable source to support Old Union as the birthplace; remarkably, a Google Books search for <"Bob Wills" "Old Union"> turns up exactly ZERO results (not even any Wikipedia mirrors!) while <"Bob Wills" Kosse> yields 111. Unless you're aware of something out there, I'd think we should change it back. Best, --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

not only in english, but in spanish the article is being edited to distort the truth. by people who are probably getting paid by some ministry of culture. candombe music is only played in one city in all of south america. to hear it somewhere else, you have to go to africa. dont let them fool you

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/849318/candombe

that should be a good enough source

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.158.153 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Steve. I'm Peter Stoller, VP of Leiber/Stoller Productions and son of Mike Stoller. Nice to meet you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstoller (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Check out the talk page for Inca Trail to Machu Picchu. Also look here: http://www.rediscovermachupicchu.com/llactapata.htm Dger (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not clear what you were saying in the talk page. The classic Inca Trail that goes to Machu Picchu goes past Patallacta not the Llactapacta that you are refering to in and that Thomson and Ziegler studied. They studied a site that is to the west of MP, on the other side of the river, and is reached by a different Inca trail. The site that is higher, smaller, and overlooks Patallacta is also called Llactapata, at least by some people. It may not be the correct name but that is a name used on Google Earth and by some other authors. If you read the reference http://www.kellscraft.com/IncaLand/incalands10.html, that is supposed to be by Bingham, it is clearly refering to the Patallacta near Km 88. Dger (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the origins of Rockabilly, I would like to support your view, Steve. See Talk:Elvis Presley. However, DocKino is still policing the Elvis article. Onefortyone (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino (or his alias, DCGeist) still reverts well-sourced additions to the Elvis article. On the other hand, he adds material that is in line with his personal opinion, falsely claiming that there has been a consensus on the talk page. Onefortyone (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DocKino still adheres stubbornly to his errors. See his comments on the Elvis talk page. However, I found some additional sources that strongly suggest that Elvis didn't invent rockabilly. Onefortyone (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For further sources, see Talk:Elvis Presley. Onefortyone (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steve. The only source you've provided for this claim that Elvis said this is from the DVD Elvis '56. I've watched this DVD again, and there is absolutely no mention anywhere of Elvis saying this at all. He doesn't say it, no one claims he said it, no one even mentions Blue Moon of Kentucky at all. Also, the only place I can find anything about this being said online is via the Wikipedia articles that it has been added to with the Elvis '56 reference. Any other web pages that have it are simply copy/paste jobs of the Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I see absolutely no alternative than to completely remove these claims from Wikipedia as the citation does not back up the claims. If you are able to provide an alternative source, or even better an actual audio recording of Elvis saying it, then I'd love to know about it. Otherwise these claims will have to be removed. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Steve, thanks for the reply. In answer to your question, I'm not aware of it being a revised version. I have two versions of the documentary; the DVD and a television recording from the 90s. Neither of these has any mention of Elvis saying "That sounds like Carl Perkins".

I had a quick look in my Elvis Day by Day book to see if there was any mention of Elvis going to see Perkins before July 1954. The earliest entry about Carl Perkins is on September 17, 1954, when Elvis and the boys played Bethel Springs, Tennessee, 31 miles from Jackson. It states that Perkins went to see Elvis perform there and met with him after the show. It's not unusual for people to have met Elvis after the show during this time, as the crowds were still quite tame and Elvis was more than happy to meet fans and sign autographs. Anyway, Perkins would later state that it was during this meeting that he asked Elvis if Sun Studios were looking for any other singers who played similar to the style Elvis was performing. There's no mention of Elvis telling Carl he'd seen him perform before, there's no mention of Carl telling Elvis that he had been playing that style for many years before, and there's no mention of Carl asking Elvis if he'd ever seen him perform.

While this is all very interesting, it still isn't getting us any further to the answers as to whether or not Elvis saw Carl Perkins perform before July 1954. I'm aware that Perkins has claimed that Elvis told him he'd seen him perform in Jackson, but the sources claiming this don't make it clear if it was before or after July 1954. As you've said on the talk page, how would Elvis have even managed to see or hear Perkins perform in Jackson? I'm sure that if Elvis was to make such a trip it would have been well documented at a later time. I'm fairly certain that Elvis would never have made that trip on his own. I'm actually convinced that there's no way Elvis would have made the 85 mile trip (170 mile round trip) at the time before July 1954. He had no reason to do so, and its also debatable about whether or not he'd have had the money to do so. Throw in the fact that this information about Elvis mentioning Carl Perkins in July 1954 is not substantiated anywhere except a link on Wikipedia pointing to a DVD that, at least from what I have available, has no mention of the incident at all, it all seems a little far fetched.

Of course, as always, I'm open to the idea that it's true if the information can be verified, and I am always on the lookout for anything new regarding Elvis Presley, but at this time I'm definitely struggling to consider any of it fact. However, on a positive note, thanks to the great discussions on the Elvis Talk Page I have learnt a lot about rockabilly and Carl Perkins that I did not know before, and that can only be a good thing. :) ElvisFan1981 (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you were able to see the DVD again, Steve, and enjoy a young Elvis once more. This second DVD you speak of, "done on the Elvis Presley album", what is that? Is it Classic Albums - Elvis Presley? If so, I have that also and can have a quick look to see if I can hear what you're hearing. I'm aware of the audio you are speaking of, with Sam Phillips talking about it being a pop record, but the recording I have on CD of that moment (King of Rock 'n' Roll: The 50s Masters box set) fades out with them all laughing. You are correct in noting that it is from the recording of Blue Moon of Kentucky in 1954, not Mystery Train in 1955. The chances of Sam Phillips repeating the exact same thing again are unlikely.

This is just a theory, but it sounds to me like the sound editor for the documentary has taken audio clips from two separate times and mixed them as one. This, unfortunately, is a very common practice on Elvis CDs and documentaries. Anyone who has seen This is Elvis will know this for sure. If the sound editor has taken the sound of Sam Phillips from 1954 after Blue Moon of Kentucky, and mixed it with another audio clip of Elvis mentioning Carl Perkins at the recording of Mystery Train, then it would explain why it sounds like it does. Elvis recorded Mystery Train in the summer of 1955, after he'd met Carl Perkins, so it would explain how he knew the name then. An alternative theory is that Elvis doesn't actually say "Carl Perkins", but maybe something that could easily be mistaken for Carl Perkins. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Steve, I've just listened to the clip and I can tell straight away that it's two different clips. First of all, the audio of the first one (where they are laughing) fades out (as on the CD version), and secondly the microphone quality is clearly different. The second part where Elvis mentions Perkins is obviously from a different microphone and different time, and it's very clear when you listen to it. You can actually hear the background hiss of the room ambience changing as the audio fades into the second clip. I'd be quite happy to believe that the second audio clip is from the recording session for Blue Suede Shoes, considering the album they are discussing in the documentary.

As I said before, it's not at all uncommon for documentary makers and CD compilers to mix different audio clips into one and it can be very confusing sometimes. If you listen to the audio you can clearly hear it's from two different sources. I can understand how you think you've heard Elvis mention Perkins during the recording of Blue Moon of Kentucky, but I think it's very obvious that the clips are completely different. If you listen to it through headphones you will definitely hear the change. What Elvis says during the second part is the following... "I don't know what we're gonna do with Carl Perkins". Once again another problem is sorted out and we can move on to dealing with other issues. Thanks for bringing this clip to my attention so that I could put my own mind at rest about the situation. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an alternative source including the quote concerning Perkins: Jean-Pierre Hombach, Elvis Presley: The King of Rock 'n' Roll, p.74. This means that Elvis's remark, "That sounds like Carl Perkins", should not have been removed from the Blue Moon of Kentucky article. Onefortyone (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

141, did you actually read the source you've just posted? It's an exact copy of the Wikipedia article Blue Moon of Kentucky, word for word, with the exact same sources and even the Reference numbers still included in the text. Clearly this "author" has just copy/pasted the whole article, hence the reason that the wrong quote is included. This has happened all over the internet, hence why you find multiple pages copied from Wikipedia if you search for "That sounds like Carl Perkins". This is how false information gets spread, and how authors in the future will mess up the whole story. Plus, have you even bothered to read the discussion between Steve and I about this matter? Elvis doesn't say "That sounds like Carl Perkins". Listen to the source, it's not the same recording session. It's absolutely clear when you listen to it. I can understand why Steve was mistaken, it does sound convincing, but as I've explained above regarding the recording, you can hear the audio fade out and then a new audio source fade in. The change in room ambience is crystal clear.

Steve, in regards to your comments on my talk page, it's an interesting theory but I disagree about the idea that Elvis just stepped closer to the microphone. That doesn't explain the fade out of the laughter (exactly at the same point as the CD) or the sudden room hiss changing to the other recording. It also doesn't explain the quality of the voices changing. Compare the audio of Sam Phillips with that of Elvis and it's even more obvious that they are separate recordings. Not only were they separate recordings, they were separate microphones. With regards to your comments on 141's page about Elvis stepping into the microphone to address Phillips, Elvis had no reason to step into the microphone, Sam Phillips was in the room with him at the time. It's easy to mistake it for the same recording because of the way they've edited it, but I don't understand how anyone could listen to it closely and still think it was the same recording. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 08:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The audio of Elvis mentioning Carl Perkins is from an attempted recording of When It Rains, It Really Pours in November 1955 (Elvis Day by Day, Jorgensen & Guralnick, p.53). He would later record it officially for RCA in 1957. The audio is here in its entirety... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwI5ujEp3u8&feature=youtu.be

From 1 minute 28 you can hear Elvis clearly, "I don't know what we're gonna do with Carl Perkins". A few seconds later he says "I don't know what we're gonna do with Perkins over there". Perkins was in the studio at the time of the recording, a very common practice amongst Sun recording artists in those days, just hanging around. In fact, it's very likely that Perkins actually records a guitar part on this audio. Perkins and Elvis performed together a little while later at Ellis Auditorium in Memphis on November 13, 1955 (Elvis Day by Day, Jorgensen & Guralnick, p.53). Now that we have all the pieces and they fit together nicely, we can put this part of the puzzle back in the box. It's working together like this, putting forward all the different theories and sources that we all have into one pot, that helps improve these articles immensely. Discussing the opposite viewpoints regarding this matter has helped us find the truth. Not only could all this information be used to clarify our current situation, but it's now also available to help improve the article about the song When It Rains, It Really Pours. Nice job, folks. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I still see a problem here. You never know for sure if your personal interpretation of the said audios is right. Even if it is, according to Wikipedia policies you need a published written source that supports your claims. Onefortyone (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For what reason? I'm not attempting to put any material into any articles, so why do I need a source? All I've done is provide the evidence for Steve to see that his original thoughts on the matter were incorrect. These aren't my "personal interpretations", I've provided plenty of evidence above, including sources and audio of the events. Like I said in my last edit summary, "Job done". Are you seriously still going to press the matter, 141? Even for you that is seriously over the top. lol ElvisFan1981 (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is still the fact that another author has accepted Steve's view and published it in a book, and this is what counts on Wikipedia, not our personal knowledge or beliefs. Onefortyone (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you actually read anything people say, do you 141? Where is this other book by this other author? If it's the one you've already posted above, then I advise you read my reaction to it and Steve's reaction to it before you reply to this again. Plus, authors can be, and in this care ARE wrong. ElvisFan1981 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You still do not see the problem here, ElvisFan. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. You may be right with your analysis above, but what counts on Wikipedia is a published source supporting your claims, and there is only a published source citing Steve's original view. This means that the author of this source may be cited in the Wikipedia article. Onefortyone (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Geez, you two. This has been sort of entertaining, but, how about taking this somewhere else? 141, I won't be using my original interpretation of what I heard on that dvd because ElvisFan's evidence that I got it wrong is persuasive that I will drop it. Now, the whole issue of "originator" is something else and should be pursued on the Elvis talk page. Thanks to both of you, ElvisFan in particular. Steve Pastor (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of "originator", here is another interesting source: in his book, The Encyclopedia of Rock Obituaries (1999), Nick Talevski writes, "Elvis was not the originator of rock'n'roll, nor the first to release a rock'n'roll record, but he was its first real star..." Onefortyone (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Figured I would take a bit of time off from this, because, other than being corrected on the quote, all that is coming back from ElvisFan, DocKeno, and Jay is, basically, there are lots of sources that say he is. I once wrote that I MIGHT sum up, but there is other info. We'll see. Hey, list that one on the talk page now that you have it written up! Steve Pastor (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I never got to ask Jerry Leiber what he thought of the Betsy Gay record, and I haven't yet asked Mike Stoller. My guess is that Jerry wouldn't have liked it nearly as much as Big Mama Thornton's original (which he and Mike have long regarded as a virtually perfect record), but he would certainly have preferred it to Presley's, as Gay's version preserve's the text and intent of the lyric. Mike might not hear much of the music he wrote in Gay's arrangement, but certainly no less than in Presley's frenetic take. Personally, I like the Gay record; I think it's a standout amongst the post-Thornton, pre-Presley versions. This is not least because it adheres to the intended female perspective. The only other pre-1956 version to do that (so far as I know) was Little Esther's 1953 recording, which was truer to the original in that it's an R&B record—and arguably less interesting for the same reason. Pstoller (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Coast Swing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A String of Pearls (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:HoundDogThorntonPeacock.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 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Werieth (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steve, please make sure when you add material to an article (especially a Featured Article), as you did here, that you follow the existing citation style in the article. I fixed it. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Your upload of File:Basic habanera rhythm, Roberts 1998 50.jpeg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dachau concentration camp may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit? Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no option when I did the revert, or I would have stated that, although I appreciate the effort you put into finding that image, it is no where near as good as the one you replaced. It pretty much makes Cooley look like a goofball, is cluttered with parts of whatever the whole was being used to portray, and is basically a head shot pasted on a cartoonish image. Perhaps that page from Billboard could be used to demonstrate Cooley's popularity somewhere else in the article. Cooley was an important figure in his prime, and the up front image of him should reflect that.Steve Pastor (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree the other image is higher quality, but WP:NFCC doesn't allow editors to use non-free images where free images are available unless there is a very good reason to do so. Here, the better headshot doesn't pass NFCC#1. There is currently a deletion nomination for the image I uploaded, so I'll wait for that to play out -- but when that's finished, I plan to nominate File:Spade Cooley.jpg for deletion as failing NFCC#1, because File:Spade Cooley Billboard.jpg "serves the same encyclopedic purpose." By the way, I've edited the new image to remove the extraneous text etc -- should be somewhat better now. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I just found and uploaded another version of the photo published in Billboard here -- it's less cartoony looking, but lower resolution. This photo would also be free. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That one looks good. Thanks for being interested and spending time on this. May have inspired me to upload a pic of his Walk of Fame Star that I took a few years ago. Steve Pastor (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mount Jitchu Drake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paro. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The File:Hound Dog by Freddie Bell and the Bellboys (US 45RPM vinyl).png is uploaded in Commons, so I replaced File:Hound Dog Teen.jpg at Hound Dog (song). Are you fine with the replacement? --George Ho (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for asking! Steve Pastor (talk)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Slavery in the United States. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:KZ Dachau Liberator 42nd Rainbow Division.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. ✗plicit 07:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bakersfield Dancers 1950s.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sdkb ^talk 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

See my reply at the discussion link listed above. The original image came from the Kern County Museum which I contacted before uploading that 2% of one image in a book with hundreds(?) of pages and is surely justified under Fair Use. Steve Pastor (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I am a student at Oregon State University and as part of a class I have joined the WikiProject:Protected Areas and I have chosen Ngorongoro Conservation Area as my article to edit.

I notice that there was a lot of activity on the article's Talk page between 2007 and 2015 and that you were an active participant. I posted information on the edits I will be making and I'm inviting you to let me know if you have support or opinions about changes.

```` Dyskko (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)