User talk:Geneisner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Phil Ochs
Is there any evidence that Phil Ochs was in the IWW ? I've never heard that, or seen any proof. However, he was a member of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO (there's a picture of his membership card in the Farewells and Fantasies 3 CD set), and he had some ties to a number of other organizations, including organizations that advocated for an end to the war in Vietnam, Civil Rights, as well as worker rights organizations (mentioned in both the Eliot biography and the Schumacher biography). I've never seen proof that he was a member of the IWW though. I would be interested in hearing of such information, and would like to see a source cited on this matter.
- see Talk:Phil Ochs for an update from JMabel about thisTvoz 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, Phil Ochs was a Liberal American Democrat, sure he was for social change, sure he had some leftist leanings, perhaps even some "radical" leanings, and he was devoted to social change, but I'm not sure I 100% agree with the phrase, "he was a devout Socialist". He said that he was not a Marxist on the back cover of one of his earliest Elektra Records (on the back cover of his album "I Ain't Marching Anymore"). Though I know that being a Socialist and being a Marxist are two different things, in some cases, but I still am not sure of that phrase about him being a "devout Socialist". I think the sentence could be better phrased, for example, "he was devoted to social causes", seems more appropriate. He may have had some Socialist tendencies, as he had some Capitalist tendencies too, but he was devoted to peaceful social change, civil rights, and causes such as those.
Wiki "bosses" done wrote me:
It would be helpful if people posting notes on talk pages would sign them with 4 tildes (that's "~" 4 in a row - see "Sign your name" in the chart below the edit box). Also when you make multiple edits to an article, please put something into the "Edit summary" or on the Talk page to give people an idea of what you did. The information is retrievable, but it's a lot of work for the readers. ThanksTvoz 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
What, like this?
Geneisner 14:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, like that. (And I am no wiki boss, just another contributor trying to understand and make sense out of your edits when you post lots of 'em in a row, as in the Phil Ochs article - I agree with most of your changes there, btw, just have to work too hard to figure out what changes you made. Could you put a few words into the "Edit summary" box above "save page" or say something on the discussion page? Thanks.) Tvoz 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
Well, I think my edits speak for themselves, and they are true. Check 'em out. Anyway, I get tired of seeing the way some people constantly confuse the story of Phil Ochs and try to paint him to be something that he often wasn't. I mean, for as many times as people say he was a "radical", I could pull out quotes from some other of his friends who said he was a "closet conservative" too, but I don't add those quotes on there because he was primarily to the left politically, of course, but he wasn't just totally a radical either. There are so many contradictory things about Phil, after all, he was Bipolar. I do agree with you that the term "sort-of-anthems" is a bit of a shitty term, that sentence just didn't seem to have much place in there, but it certainly wasn't "suppressing of information" to remove that shitty ungrammatical sentence, it just seemed like a shitty sentence (heck, I think I'll edit that word "sort-of-anthems" out. It should be fine to just say that they used his songs in the Yippie media). If people have problems with my edits they can discuss them with me here, I'm not going to get caught up in some bullshit discussion with some types who may have their own twisted agendas. My agenda is only one of truth. Keep it real, and keep it funky.
Geneisner 10:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I totally agree with that edit - your "sort-of-anthems" was a good try at cleaning up an out-of-place and indeed shitty sentence - I couldn't deal with it at all so deleted the whole damn thing one of the times - but it's better now. Point is that "I Aint Marching Anymore" is much more than a "Yippie anthem" whatever that means, and Ochs was much more than a Yippie if he even was that -- I agree with you about the misrepresentation of Phil's politics. That was why I included JFK as a major influence - to understand Ochs people need to also understand the more conventional, traditional side of him, the side that loved Elvis and John Wayne, the side that supported Gene McCarthy and would have supported RFK. This is an old argument, by the way, as you no doubt know _ I recall having it face-to-face with people further left than I, many times. As for the edit summaries, ok, I'll keep comparing old edit to new edit which is a pain in the ass, but I haven't found much if anything to disagree with you about. Unless you want to argue about "gained popularity" v. "gained some popularity" - see what you think of my latest tweak in the first sentences. Tvoz 17:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
Yep, I basically agree with you there. Also, sure, the part about him having "gained popularity" v. "gained some popularity" could be fine either way. It seems that part has been taken out by someone anyway upon last check. But either way, really. I wouldn't necessarily say that Phil was ever really that "popular" during his lifetime, and I don't really know how "popular" he might be considered today, but I do think that he has gained some popularity since he passed away and up to the present time. I think to say that he "gained some popularity in the 1960s" is perhaps a little more accurate than saying he "gained popularity in the 1960s", since his record sales were usually pretty moderate even at the height of his career, but then it just comes down to a silly argument of semantics and ones definition of what "popular" is and what "somewhat popular" is. Even at the height of his career though, as well as to this day, I would still say that Phil is only "somewhat popular" at most.
- yeah, that was me, reworking the first sentences to remove the "gained some popularity" phrase Tvoz 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as the Intro portion for Phil on Wiki as it stands right now, well, I think it's pretty good and accurate at this point. I think the Intro shouldn't get too much longer than it is already though, and that's another reason why I thought the sentence on the Yippies using Phil's songs for their media was perhaps unnecessary for the Intro part at least, and perhaps that sentence would serve better in the body of the story on Phil instead of the Intro, but whatever. As you seemed to point out, and I agree, if that's in the Intro part, fine, but I think the fact that Phil campaigned for Eugene McCarthy is just as important to this story as the Yippies using his songs for a couple of media clips that probably weren't very widely distributed. Phil campaigning for Eugene McCarthy is mentioned in the Wiki article, but it's in the body of the article and not in the Intro part, and the body of the article is where I feel the sentence on the Yippies using Phil's songs for their media should probably be too, but oh well. I guess we'll see where future edits may lead us, but I think the Intro portion was accurate and concise enough as it was before that particular Yippie media sentence was added to it, and the added mention of the Yippies in the Intro may perhaps seemingly overstate their importance to the subject at hand. That's all I was really concerned about as far as that issue goes. Geneisner 01:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of the intro section vs the body - there was both too much detail and not enough in the intro, giving too much weight to some minor points (like AFTRA, and GOrson's political connections for example). I went in and did some rearranging, moving some of that top-heavy material into the main body of the article or into footnotes (the Yippie use of his songs, for example), so that the intro can be just that, a quick overview, and the body of the article to have the details. I hope this structure will make the article more accessible, and hope I didn't de-emphasize anything too much. Tvoz 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Howdy Tvoz,
So far am pleased with the edits on the Phil Ochs Wiki entry. I'll be sure to stay tuned and see how it evolves over time.
Peace,
Geneisner 06:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks - I think it's shaping up now too, and things are in better proportion. (The prominence of that AFTRA note was bothering me!)
Tvoz 06:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tom Paxton.jpg
Please provide the source (website, book, etc) where you obtained this photo for upload. It has seven days before it will be deleted for not having one. Thank you. -- nae'blis 19:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply: Ok, I added source info: http://www.tompaxton.com
You wrote: Where should a provide the source for the Tom Paxton photo that I added to his Wiki profile? The photo is one that I got from Tom's website, and he gave me permission to use it on the myspace account I set up for him and is fine with it being used on the Wiki profile page.
- Mmmm, tough one. Did you get an email or just a verbal confirmation that the picture was usable on Wikipedia? If it was an email, I would post it on the talk page, maybe with the email address munged. -- nae'blis 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
Well, I am going to see him in person in November, so I can get a verbal confirmation from him at that time if you'd like. I can probably get an e-mail confirmation on this too, I had before in regards to the myspace profile of which the same image is used and he was fine with that and seemed to have no problems with it, there ain't much doubt that he would have no problem with Wiki using this pic for informational purposes, but having him post a message on here in the comments regarding the use of that pic seems a bit much. I can write to him and try to get a confirmation though, if that is the only way I guess. Tom is a nice guy, and I know that he appreciates quality sources of information on the internet. I'm almost certain this picture would be no problem. If it ever is, for whatever reason, just take it down. I have some pictures of Tom that I've taken myself that I can use if you'd prefer, but they aren't nearly as good as that old publicity picture. I just like that one better. Also, that picture is used on a number of other sites on the net too, including Tom's All Music Guide profile picture, and on other pages. It's basically a publicity picture for the general public.
- Ahh. The thing to be aware of on Wikipedia that makes it all tricky is that we can't get permission "for use only on Wikipedia", etc. It either has to fall under some sort of free license like the GFDL (because our licensed content can be reused by anyone agreeing to the GFDL's terms, including commercial resellers - though why you'd try to resell content available freely online is a little beyond me), or we can use irreplacable images in certain situations under fair use guidelines. Keep in mind that WP's fair use guidelines are actually more stringent than fair use law, and a living subject usually can be photographed by another party under GFDL/public domain; if you're going to be meeting with him in person, another option is to take a candid shot of him then and license it yourself under the GFDL, which will avoid any further confusion. -- nae'blis 19:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Reply:
Ok, well, that's fine. I still think the picture currently in use could probably still be used and somehow fall under the GFDL / Public Domain status to some degree. It's basically an older publicity picture for the general public and it is used freely on several different places on the internet. I'm also pretty sure that Tom would be fine with Wiki using that picture. I will be sure to ask Tom about that particular picture when I get the chance too, and I can try and take some more pictures of him too if the current picture won't do for whatever reason.
Update:
I got a message from Tom Paxton, and he said that it was OK for Wiki to use the picture of him. Here's the message:
"Tell the Wikipedia guys the use of the picture is fine. They should credit Irene Young. Tom"
Geneisner 06:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sri Poopy-Poopy
I'm still kinda ticked off that Wiki censored the Cult of Sri Poopy-Poopy article. It's not the only abusrdist religion out there, ya know. Haha! Heck, it's probably one of the truest ones of them all.
