User talk:Mtopper73

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Get It On (T. Rex song), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's odd that my contribution was considered "original research" without citation, since I was merely stating that "Get It On" was the only top 10 US hit the group had--something that is already stated almost identically in the "chart performance" section of the article ("becoming the band's only major US hit") with no references apparently required for that statement. I was merely repeating what was said there (with apparently no issues) at the top of the article, to stress its importance to the group's career. A simple look at the Wiki T. Rex discography page will also show that "Get It On" was the band's only top 10 US hit. This is not a controversial or disputed statement, nor one for which a lot of research is required. If I add the comment back on, what reference should I use? Would I be allowed to reference Wikipedia's own T. Rex discography page? There's another book I could reference as well, Cliff McLenehan's "Marc Bolan: A Chronology", would that do? Mtopper73 (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for bringing your concerns to me. I missed the statement in the "chart performance" section; that should be sourced as well since nothing else in the article appears to support it (unless I've missed something else?). Wikipedia pages are not acceptable as references per WP:CIRCULAR, but if information at those pages is cited, you may be able to copy those citations. The book sounds like it would be acceptable to me. DonIago (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Just wanted to make sure you're aware 45cat.com has been judged an unreliable source as it is user-generated. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources#Unreliable_sources. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "Strange Brew" record is ALSO listed as a June 2, 1967 release on rateyourmusic.com. Is that considered a reliable source? I see so many sources being used, including in the very page for "Strange Brew" here (ie. various book bios), which are far less reliable than either of those two sites. Also, simple logic tells one the release date is June 2. All discographies list its release date as June. The first entrance of "Strange Brew" on the UK chart was for the week ending June 14, 1967. That means its release date would have to be either June 2 or June 9 (UK singles were only released on Fridays). However, it CAN'T be June 9 because that would be too late for it to make the June 14 chart. In addition, four other singles whose release dates were June 2 (Cliff, Cilla Black, Small Faces, etc.) all made their chart debut on June 14, the same as "Strange Brew". This, plus the fact that 45cat and rateyourmusic also list June 2, I think is plenty of evidence. What, exactly would be considered a reliable source for the release date? 45cat should be good enough, however, no matter if it's user-generated, because they get their info directly from official sources like record company sheets, trade papers, etc. Mtopper73 (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you think 45cat.com is a reliable source, you should discuss that at the link I gave above. I doubt you'll have much luck, though. They also list what are considered reliable sources. Did you have a look? Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Could you add a source to these quotes, are these excerpts of reviews taken for a book ? You can answer me on my talk page. Woovee (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Which quotes are you referring to? Is this for the 1970 "T. Rex" album you are talking about? I can definitely add solid sources to a quote if I haven't already, but I need to know specifically which quotes in the article, so I can note the appropriate source. Mtopper73 (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would need to know the publishing date for the NME review of the 1970 T. Rex album, was there a title for that review?

Did you read all these reviews through this book McLenahan, Cliff (2019). Marc Bolan: 1947-1977 A Chronology. Helter Skelter Books.?

if you don't know the publishing date for the NME review , one can add this book reference as a source.

Someone wrote on the Dandy in the Underworld wiki article that the album received a four out of five star review in Sounds (magazine) but there isn't any quote included in the Critical Reception section. if there is an excerpt of this review mentioned in the book, could you add it on wiki? - that would give a plus to the article.

I have just managed to locate the publishing date for the Melody Maker review on Rocksbackpages.com. Woovee (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The NME review with Nick Logan calling the album "immensely enjoyable" is indeed found in the McLenahan book--I can add in the book as a reference to the quote if you like. As for "Dandy", in checking McLenahan I do also see the Sounds review there--I can add in a quote from that review as well on that album's critical reception section. I also see that the NME review for "Dandy" in that section says "citation needed" next to it, so I can put McLenahan as the citation there as well. (I have to admit, just for the record, that the McLenahan 1947-77 Chronology is the absolute definitive, most exhaustive and accurate Marc Bolan reference work--thank god it exists.) Mtopper73 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

If you can do that and also include quotes of the NME, Record Mirror at the Tanx article, that would be helpful. When looking at the booklet of the Tanx remastered cd, I learnt that it was well received; but there wasn't any quote mentioned. Those Marc Bolan related articles, need to be enriched. I entirely did the work of research in the legacy section of the T. Rex article years ago, I am sure that a lot of readers didn't know how much Marc Bolan was revered by younger musicians, this was/is an invitation to discover his less known material. Woovee (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

OK, sure! It's Christmas and all, so give me a day or two to get all that done, but I absolutely would love to help flesh out those articles. I had spent time a few months back fleshing out the Tyrannosaurus Rex album articles using information from McLenahan, and had planned to move on to T. Rex stuff but got sidetracked. Your request came at the perfect time! Happy holidays! Mtopper73 (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Octopus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 17:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Possibly this text is in his earlier book 20th Century Boy but he says "Great Horse was one of four tracks recorded with Took which were overdubbed".Romomusicfan (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I actually re-edited my edit to provide a better explanation for the reversion. When I saw your revision, I went to Paytress's "The Rise and Fall of a 20th Century Superstar" and since that's the later updated biography and does not contain that sentence you quote, there's probably a reason it was deleted from the earlier version. Also, Cliff McLenahan's "1947-77 Chronology" which is the most detailed and accurate look at the studio sessions mentions 6 songs recorded in April/May '69, only 2 of which made the album. Mtopper73 (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you reverted it back to your revision. I don't want to make a huge deal out of it since it's not the end of the world, but McLenahan's book should take priority here--besides, the statement in the earlier Paytress bio you quote does not even mention which 4 songs, only "Great Horse". McLenahan's gives specific info on the recording dates and which songs were recorded on which dates. There were 8 total (you count the Spires" single), just 2 of which made the album. Mtopper73 (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The earlier Paytress book specifically says four tracks got overdubbed. I have used that reference for the figure of four and Cliff for the identification of Wind Cheetah and Great Horse (Paytress also mentions Great Horse). The only issue of dispute is whether a third and fourth track have their origins in the Took sessions - something Cliff does not categorically deny. Therefore I have used both sources. P.S. sorry about the edit clash, I think we were both editing at the same time.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

But Cliff *does* categorically deny it if you look at what he wrote about those sessions (as I posted above). Anyways, I'm not going to push this any further and you can leave it the way you want it, I'm just noting my objection. I trust McClenahan more than Paytress, especially since his research on the sessions is so much more detailed. Mtopper73 (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't want a back-and-forth revision war to start here LOL, so I posted a little explanation of the clash of references (Paytress vs. McClenahan) on the album's talk page for anyone interested. Mtopper73 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here is what McClenahan says about the spring 1969 sessions, all at Trident Studios:

April 11, 1969: 7 takes of "Rumbling Spires" and 5 takes of "Do You Remember"

April 29, 1969: 3 takes of "Abyssinia" and 4 takes of "Wind Cheetah"

May 22, 1969: 2 takes of "Ill Starred Man" and 2 takes of Demon Queen"

May 28, 1969: 2 takes of "Great Horse' and 2 takes of "Blessed Wild Apple Girl"

As you can see, only "Great Horse" and "Wind Cheetah" made A Beard Of Stars. No other songs are listed. Paytress's books--both older and newer editions--do not go into this great of detail. Mtopper73 (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've seen various other sources which quote various tracks for the other songs including Lofty Skies and Find A Little Wood. There is also one take of Organ Blues which has a sound on it similar to Took's "fonofiddle" (one string violin with telephone bell attacked to give a droning sound.) Romomusicfan (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I must say, it's actually quite nice to be debating esoteric Bolan trivia with a fellow fanboy! I still think McLenehan's book is easily the most up-to-date (latest edition 2019) and the most exhaustively detailed reference one can currently use. Other books may make guesses about what songs were recorded when (your guess about the fonofiddle is intriguing, but it is still only a guess) but McLenehan clearly had access to the studio logs and tapes and gives one the specific dates, studios, number of takes, what those takes sounded like, etc. He's the Mark Lewisohn of the Bolan universe. I'd take his book over a bio published all the way back in 1992 (of which Paytress's later bio leaves that sentence out entirely). Mtopper73 (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW, just as a sidenote, why the hell did that version of "Organ Blues" make the album? It's so slow and plodding, pretty much the only song on the album I usually skip. The faster outtakes of it are far more exciting. I'm going to have to re-hear them and see if I can spot a fonofiddle (although it could be Bolan, not Took, playing it--it doesn't sound like a hard instrument to learn to play). Mtopper73 (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Fonofiddle version has no drums on it, just this weird sound, half-drone half proto Brian Eno sound effect. It's probably on YouTube but right now I'm on a work computer with YouTube on Restricted Mode so can't find it.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the fonofiddle version Romomusicfan (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Hey, I had a quick question for you--how were you able to contact me directly here from the editing page? I'm trying to contact another editor (for a different album) directly so that I'm not fighting back and forth with them over a certain revision. When I click on the editor's name all I get is a small paragraph they wrote about themselves but seemingly no way to contact them. Mtopper73 (talk) 05:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean how I was able to navigate to this here talk page? IIIRC, I just went to the View History tab for the A Beard Of Stars article and clicked on your talk link on one of your listed edits, *shrug*. Romomusicfan (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You recently added content to I Can See for Miles which included the following errors in wikicode:

• {{sfn|Neill|Kent|2002|p=177}} & {{sfn|Neill|Kent|2002|p=170}}.

The problem is that these two sfn refs do not connect to any source material within the article and that is causing 2 "Harv warning" s to appear on the article and for the article to also be in the Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors since the 2 sfn refs have no target or source.
All of the following can be helpful when using the sfn style of referencing:

• Help:Shortened footnotes especially its section How to create shortened footnotes.
• Template:Harvard citation especially its section 3.1.1 on Shortened footnotes.

Also, take a look at DeFord Bailey a Wikipedia Good article for how it uses the sfn nomenclature for the one book written by Morton & Wolfe. It's a fairly short article that uses the sfn referencing style for a single book..
All of this is to say...I have no idea who or what this Neill & Kent book is. If you would provide information on the book into the article, using DeFord Bailey as a possible example, that would remove I Can See for Miles from its error Category, - Shearonink (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I changed the two citations in question to an ordinary book reference, it should be fine now. Mtopper73 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Wanted you to know that it looked like the one ref was for page 177 and the 2nd one was for page 170 so I adjusted them according to your previous sfn refs. Hope that's alright - Shearonink (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, thanks! Mtopper73 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. While I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, I have some concerns that you're not following our sourcing policies and guidelines.

For example, this edit added a lot of information without adding any sources. There doesn't appear to be any sources in the prose at that point. And while its great that you added some sourcing in a subsequent edit, I don't believe you sourced everything you added.

Additionally, there's problems with some of the sourcing you're using too. Generally speaking, Youtube can't be used - see WP:RSPYT. by a source unless its an official account of something. If it was, for example, the official YouTube account of a musician, or of a reliable source (like the official YouTube account of the New York Times or something) it would be usable. But if its just a random person/account uploading live performances, that's not usable. That will generally fail WP:USERG.

Additionally, even if you did find a usable YouTube video, it looks like you've used to to cite a statement like "this song usually had an extended guitar solo when played live." (YouTube ref of a live performance). There's issues with that sort of source use as well:

1. To watch a video and apply your own description or observation of said video footage, would be original research.
2. Even beyond that, conceptually, a link to a single performance could only really prove that an extended guitar solo was played once, not that it was "common" or "usual".

I know this may come off as being a stickler, but they are important concepts to follow, particularly if you plan on continuing to make rather large additions to articles that you've been doing.

If you plan on continuing to add content to Wikipedia, please be sure you brush up on some common concepts:

1. WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:V, are core sourcing concepts to follow.
2. There's a number of resources where you can look into sources that are, and are not, considered usable on Wikipedia. There's WP:RSP as a general resource, and WP:RSMUSIC and WP:NOTRSMUSIC that are more music-specific.
3. You can ask questions at places like WT:ALBUMS, WT:MUSIC, and WT:SONGS. (ALBUMS is the most active of the three.)

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your concerns about my edit to "Early Flight". That first edit was, in fact, accidentally published before I had finished and when I realized that, I immediately added sources in the next edit, as you noted. You mention, however, that you still don't believe I sourced everything I added. In checking just now, I believe I did source every addition I made with the sole exception of noting that "Up Or Down" was written by Jorma's brother Peter, which I can easily source and will (it's right in the album liner notes).

As for the YouTube links, I had just been told by someone last week who claimed to have been editing Wiki for 19 years that YouTube links were not valid unless the channel posting the link was from some "official" source, which is the same thing you're telling me here; however, the YouTube link I used for that reference to the guitar solo comes from Wolfgang's Classic Rock, which is an official live music channel that posts concert clips with the musicians' permission. However, if that's not a good enough source, I can find a non-YouTube reliable citation to use that is. I know the bass solo was a regular feature of the band's live shows because I'm a lifelong fan who has heard many many shows from those tours, although I realize I would still need a source for that or it would be "original research"; I will look for a reliable source and if I can't find one, I will take out that particular observation. (The other YouTube link I used to their performance at Monterey Pop, I can easily replace with a citation to Tamarkin's bio that mentions it).

The problem with reading the Wiki rules and regulations for posting is that they can still be subject to varying interpretations. I've probably seen *dozens* of Wiki articles which cite YouTube as a reference--and not citations from "official" channels, either--and those have been up for years. I also had a citation I made to 45cat.com removed for not being a reliable reference although again, I keep seeing 45cat cited in dozens if not hundreds of other articles, which makes me think there must be exceptions being made and if so, I'm wondering how those citations stay up and mine was taken down--unless it's simply the case that these poor citations haven't been rigorously checked. And as long as I have your ear at the moment, I want to ask a question about citing from blogs: these are, of course, not encouraged and I totally understand why, but Wiki does note a few exceptions that can be made. My question is, if a blog has a photo reproduction of a newspaper or magazine article (say, with a review of band's album, or an interview segment with band members), could that be considered one of the exceptions? I have never cited a blog before but I've been tempted to and was actually going to ask about it, and since you have contacted me, now is as good a time as any. And secondly, if the answer is "no", that I can't cite the blog itself, can I just directly cite the newspaper or magazine in question (ie. if a blog has a photo reproduction of a New Musical Express article with an interview with a band, can I simply directly cite the New Musical Express (with the date of publication and page number, of course) as my source?

Anyways, thank you for your concerns. I am always willing to make corrections, add/change citations, or learn more about the process of editing these pages. I have been editing Wiki articles for six years now but only very recently have I found myself being challenged or corrected in any major way (have I been flagged or something?), but I don't mind at all. Mtopper73 (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

PS I'd just like to add that the Early Flight article, before I edited it, was filled with claims that have no citations. For example it claims "The first three tracks come from the recording sessions for Jefferson Airplane Takes Off which took place in December 1965 at RCA Victor's Music Center of the World recording studio in Hollywood." Later, it claims " "Mexico" and "Have You Seen the Saucers?" had been previously released as a non-album single in 1970, but this was the first LP on which the two songs appeared." Again, there are no citations for these factual claims, and there are even more citation-free statements there as well, yet that article has been up for years that way with no-one challenging those claims or even adding a {citation needed} clause to them!! Now the information in those statements is correct, and I actually do know who/what to cite for those claims. If you're telling me that every single statement in an article needs a citation, that's perfectly fine, it's just that right now about 97% of all Wiki articles would fail at that, LOL. But I can add those citations for this article as well, so that it is fully sourced. Mtopper73 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ideally, per WP:V, all content and all statements are sourced by reliable sources. Yes, obviously, in practice, implementation varies wildly. And it varies even more depending on the subject matter. When you write about old classic rock albums from decades past, there's a lot of rough, incomplete stuff. (I see it in the 1990s/2000s rock album/song articles I often contribute to.) Conversely, if you're out there editing Taylor Swift or Morgan Wallen type articles, you'll see lots of interest, with lots of people enforcing the rules quite fully.

I often compare editing Wikipedia to driving a car. Do people drive well above the legal speed limits? Of course. Do people drive drunk? Sure. Is it allowed? No. And if police pull you over and confront you about it, does it work to say "But everyone does this!" or "But I've always done this and I never get in trouble!". No, obviously not. But how likely you are to get caught also varies on if you're speeding down a dirt road in the middle of nowhere or in the middle of a bustling city too.

Same goes with editing Wikipedia. Many don't follow the rules. They add unsourced content or original research. And they don't get caught because no one sees it, and by the time someone notices it, they're long gone. But, if people notice and you're still around, you're responsible for your actions. And after some warnings, there's the possibility of repercussions - potentially getting your account temporarily blocked or locked out of editing specific articles, etc. Some end up banned from the website in the end.

(I don't mean to threaten you with those things, nor do I like the idea of me being a "cop" in this scenario, but I generally find this to be the most clear metaphor.)

Personally, I'd recommend looking over the WP:ALBUMS page and the WP:RSMUSIC/WP:NOTRSMUSIC links. There's a lot of guidance and "frequently asked question" type stuff. (For example, if you check WP:NOTRSMUSIC, you can see that, 45cat is not considered to be a usable source on Wikipedia. And there's generally explanations and links to past discussions for context too.)

As far as YouTube goes, I'd generally consider it unreliable unless its an official YouTube account of a musician or a known reliable publication. Let's say you wanted to add something to the Metallica article. If the YouTube account is "MetallicaBandOfficial", its usable. Or if it was, for example, the official YouTube account for Pitchfork, which is listed as reliable in a general sense at WP:RSMUSIC, its YouTube account would be usable. But if its some random "GrimeyJakesUltimateRockPage", probably stay away from using it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nice (The Nice album), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Jackson was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2026 (UTC)Reply