Talk:Elvis Presley/Archive 22

message: I vote for young Elvis, not "Elvis Meets Nixon" Elvis.. Steve Pastor 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the photo - as I agree with the above two comments. --Northmeister 01:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoring the free pic

message: Hi. I noticed that there is a copy of some version of this article at Talk:Elvis Presley/Sandbox. It doesn't seem that it's been in use for a long time; some discussion of it can be found at Talk:Elvis Presley/archive15. Is this page needed? I don't think it's doing any active harm, but I can't see what's useful about keeping it around either. It may contain some history needed for GFDL reasons, but I'm not sure how I would determine whether that's the case.  Has anyone here got any thoughts on the matter? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is there a sandbox for this article? If we need to check the revision history, just check the revision history. The sandbox should be deleted. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've killed it. If it ever needs undeleting for any reason, please let me know. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete sandbox? 

message: Please make sure when you're removing information that you're not removing named refs. For example, ref 8 is now blank. I'll fix it, but if everyone could try to watch out for that, it'd be great. If it's Detailed info. (base ref), then somewhere else, there's  (subsequent use) at least once. If the base ref is removed, any subsequent ones produce a blank error. So, do a search, find an instant of a subsequent use, and paste over the base ref you're removing. Does that make sense? I thank you for your consideration with this. Lara❤Love 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When removing information 

message: Having two seperate types of footnotes and two seperate notes/references sections is confusing and non-standard.  Let's discuss the best way of merging these two sections.  Shall we change all alphabetic footnotes to numeric? Or shall we change all numeric footnotes to alphabetic? Wjhonson 05:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Egghead06 has been making edits/reverts regarding one sentence. I have admitted on Egghead06's talk page that I find his original dispute difficult to understand. However, I have not found his edits acceptable (though well-intentioned) so I have rewritten the sentence rather than revert to my original, moving away from the wording/grammar he disputed. I hope he, and others find the change makes sense. Rikstar 12:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood years 

message: A previous entry read: 
:Other women, like Cybill Shepherd, have said they had full sex with the singer. However, "Shepherd's much-quoted claims that she taught him the joys of oral sex is viewed with skepticism by other lovers of the King."
This infers that other lovers were skeptical about Shepherd teaching Presley about oral sex. It was then changed to:
:Other women, like Cybill Shepherd, have said they had full sex with the singer. However, Shepherd's much-quoted claims are "viewed with skepticism by other lovers of the King."
This rewording now suggests that Shepherd might not have had full sex with Presley, something not even hinted at earlier. I think this issue needs clarifying. If that means longer text, I think we should revert to the simple claim by Shepherd that she had full sex with the singer, period. This would be simpler and, more importantly, it will allow the article to be shortened. Any discussion about this would be appreciated.  Thanks. Rikstar 15:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the "full sex" be changed to something else? Is that even a real term for it? I mean, what's the difference between sex and full sex? Lara❤Love 15:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -- Rikstar (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look it up in the dictionary: "Full sex" is how some people incorrectly refer to intercourse, thereby incorrectly concluding that "sex" includes low-level blow jobs.  Most dictionaries correctly describe anything less than intercourse as non-sex.  Bill Clinton was legally correct when he said that "I did not have sex with that woman"; in other words he did not have sex (i.e. "full sex") - he only had a blow job. Hoserjoe (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex symbol: Cybill Disobedience 

message: The fact that this discussion is repeating itself speaks volumes. Instead of article improvement, we're forced to deal with uncordial and nonconsensus based, disruptions; repetitive and relentless. I've tried to get third parties, good at editing tasks, involved in this article to help improve it; but repeatedly they say the same thing to paraphrase:  "I don't want the hassle". The hassle of what you ask? Take a look at the latest round of lets disrupt editing to prove a point. You wonder why this article can't move forward. Who the heck wants the hassle of it all?  The worse part is despite numerous evidence to the contrary and despite past prohibitions on editing this article, the same said personage wishes to play innocent as if there is no history of inflicting the 'hassle' that keeps people away. When will WP:Point violation, due to the history here, become quite clear enough, to enforce a previous Arbcom case involving this editors editorial 'hassle'ment of others? I wonder. This is the last statement I make on this page until this situation is resolved, although I'll monitor the page and help where I can from time to time. What the 'hassle' is the point of editing if all your work and the work of others is disrupted by a broken record playing over and over that which was dealt with before. Rikstar thanks for all the effort, Laralove great work, StevePastor the same, and other productive editors, thanks all. Best of luck and I hope this article achieves feature status as I hoped it would. --Northmeister (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, says it all really. I note from 141's posts above that his "thank you" for my efforts is a little late and a rather empty gesture, given that he could have engaged with other users in discussing/praising edits when it had been repeatedly requested. 141 continues to ignore specific arguments patiently detailed against him, and then muddies the waters with fresh arguments/accusations to throw people off. This is part of an arsenal of tactics used by 141, which includes his 'broken record' rejoinders; repeatedly quoting the same phrases from other users (ignoring or simply disagreeing when their use/validity is challenged); always using the "it's well sourced" ploy to justify actual or proposed inclusion - however bizarre or inappropriate.   Rikstar (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing has gone quiet I see. It starts and then stops with 141's involvement. What a deeply dissatifactory situation this is. Is this a regular occurrence in wikipedia? Are there many articles where good, third party editors run a mile to avoid getting embroiled? How are those situations resolved? Rikstar (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found the answers to be yes, many and they are not. Many Wiki entries are not projects as such. They are working to a design that no one knows with an infinite timescale, no managers, many experts and any members (and non members) are free to add their tuppence (or 2 cents!) worth. See The holocaust, Michael Jackson, Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, 9/11, JFK etc etc to understand that each one is endlessly fluid and you will never be able to say 'project done'! The most stable appear to be things such as chemical, engineering ,scientific subjects or sports statistics where the facts are not disputable - would that were so for Elvis!--Egghead06 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I knew as much really. I think the point I was making was that the problem is isolated and specific at this point with Presley. The remedy is equally specific, regardless of what other demons this article develops in the future. Rikstar (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The hassle'ment of it all: last statement until repetitive problem dealt with

message: Why is this occurring? the_undertow talk 23:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without looking into it too much... With the volume of edits in this article (a source of much discussion) material is added (usually without discussion or coordination with other editors), then it is removed (since usually it has been previously decided that it it not appropriate for an article this long, is a questionable or obviously incorrect source, etc Knock yourself out learning the history of this article. If the reference is also not removed, you end up with what you see. (I think.)Steve Pastor (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from where I spent a month doing the references on this article, named one and then used it again elsewhere. Now the initial, named references has been removed and the subsequent not updated. There's a note somewhere above asking editors not to do that, but people do it anyway. I'll find them later. Lara❤Love 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Fix? 

message: This article is too long and most sections are filled with irrelevant, undocumented, and/or disparaging material that has nothing to do with a proper encyclopedic reference.  For example, there was far too much speculation about Elvis' family tree, the behaviour of his father, his sex life, and how some people in the audience felt about his performances.  Since this article is spinning off in so many irrelevant directions, much can be removed to  shorten up the article and make it more coherent.  I intend to clean up most of the other sections in this same manner and hope that other contributors will refrain from including reams of rubbish about his sex life, random thoughts of his friends, and taste in food.  Hoserjoe (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undocumented? You removed whole sections that were completely referenced. IrishGuy talk 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when he removed even more content I reverted it. Please discuss such massive changes on the talk page before you rampage through the article, destroying many editor's contributions. Jeffpw (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for reverting the article. However, Hoserjoe seems to continue to remove well-sourced material. Onefortyone (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left a message on his talk page. Let's hope it helps. Jeffpw (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I also hope it helps. If not, we can forget the GA status of the article. Onefortyone (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is far too big, and WP automatically claims that the size is far beyond reasonable.  Since much of it is so badly written and irrelevant, I have proceeded to trim it down to a more moderate size, and in the process removed heaps of irrelevant or disparaging material.  Please don't complain about this cleanup, because it only encourages more, and excessive, bad style and tedious, small-minded speculation. What is really offensive about much of the material in the article is that so much salacious and evil-minded speculation has squeezed out any useful and respectful material. It'll never achieve GA status with so much trashy gossip and irrelevant rubbish.  Even if it's referenced, irrelevant trash (such as his mother's drinking habits) doesn't belong here. Hoserjoe (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have primarily removed critical material from the article that was well sourced. This is not acceptable. Onefortyone (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "critical material".  Most of it is nauseating and disrepectful gossip, just irrelevant trash. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for lowering this article to such depths of nastiness. 66.183.87.254 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We'll see what the wider community thinks of your edits. I've placed this on ANI discussion. Jeffpw (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means!  This article has been a mess since several partisans have tried pounding their respective views onto each other, and the entire article has been suffering as a result.  Look UP, and you will see reams of complaints about undisciplined editing.  It's very obvious to most of us here, that there has been a long-standing 3-way editing war, and we're tired of being set upon by the various partisans (who delete our honest and capable submissions, too, by the way).  So now, instead of quietly sitting by while the various factions continue to desecrate this article, we're going to take the bull by the horns and clean it up. You're on notice now, that we've had enough of sleazy submissions full of gossip, scandal, and rumor-mongering. Hoserjoe (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an impartial observer here. I have never edited this page, nor have any wish to. However, as an outsider, it seems that you have at least ruffled feathers by deleting large amounts of the article (which are supported, as required by policy, with verifiable sources) without reference to other editors, and more importantly, without even seeking consensus. Further, it appears that you have not responded when this is pointed out to you. Bear in mind that this is an article about a major historical figure which has survived all levels of scrutiny before you arrived, and it might be thought at least impetuous just to jump in with both feet and tear it to shreds (as others might think) without reference to, and respect for, those who have carefully constructed it. As a retired engineer and University lecturer myself, I don't recognise your values in the slightest. Please consider carefully whether your single-minded approach and tendentious language (for which see above) are appropriate to editing an encyclopedia, which here is a collaborative effort or it is nothing. If you decide that it is, in fact, nothing, please feel free to find another project to involve yourself in. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Echoing Rodhullandemu, until I saw your edits I was a completely uninvolved editor (I think I may have corrected a stray grammar error here once, but that's about the extent of my editing this page). If there's a content dispute or edit war, there are many ways to resolve the dispute. Try a Request for comments or mediation. What you don't do is take it upon yourself to revamp the entire article to your specific standard of decency and to reflect your particular perspective on life. That's just not the Wikipedia way. I will continue to watch this article, and will jump in again after the protection is removed if it seems necessary. Jeffpw (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My cleanup exercise was entirely legitimate and fully consistent with WP:5 pillars.  Only unsourced, off-topic, or unencyclopedic material was removed. In addition, the article was far past the WP size limits. I will be watching to see that the article doesn't stray off course again. Hoserjoe (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Haemo. Jeffpw (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Onefortyone (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what links you're referring to.  There was the odd instance when I removed something irrelevant that was linked to some other unrelated source.  For example, someone who saw someone else acting drunk and falling down, or speculation about whether Elvis came from Scottish or German roots or the gossip about "full sex" or drug use.  If I removed something on-topic, I'd be please to deal with it, but I think that most of what was removed was irrelevant or unsourced material.  Some of it was outright crude and offensive. The offending material was (is?) clearly non-encyclopedic; all editing was done according to WP:5 Pillars.  Further, the entire article was grossly overweight and needed some vigourous WP:Liposuction from a disinterested 3rd party.  Hoserjoe (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically re "crude and offensive". First off, please see WP:CENSOR; second, these are subjective terms and are better approached via consensus than unilaterally. If they're unsourced, however, excise with extreme prejudice. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, but when you say,"You forgot in this article about the main thing - the music. You could show notations, chord progressions, lead sheets etc.. ", please remember that I didn't write the article.  We are concerned here only with the undue length of the article which was straining the Wikipedia display system. It was also straining under a load of irrelevant, unencyclopedic, material. The article simply needed - and received - a haircut to get it displaying properly again. BomberJoe (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BomberJoe-HoserJoe? Similar careers & attitudes? Please don't tell me I have to apply WP:DUCK and ask for a puppet check here. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing, Rod. I have asked an admin about it. Jeffpw (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be no doubt that BomberJoe is a sockpuppet of Hoserjoe. See  and . Onefortyone (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Persuasive, very persuasive, but I don't yet see a reason for going for the jugular. Both editors claim to have military connections; let's see if they do the honourable thing before it is forced upon them. In my day it was a bottle of Scotch and a revolver. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see this doing him any favours either  --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may - the Bomber Joe moniker is one I use for aerospace and engineering contributions.  All other contributions (.e.g history, music) are hoserjoe.  It's a distinction maintained since my days as an engineering journalist and is known as a legitimate "segregated" identity as opposed to a "puppet" identity.  I'll try to make my submissions with some identity consistency.  I can see how confusing it is to those here because immediately Rodhullandemu jumps to the conclusion that there is a "military connection"!  I regret I may have caused a User to jump to such an elaborate and wobbly conclusion!  To fend off any other unpredictable conclusions, I'd like to state that I am not connected to the CIA, either.  Regardless, I will try to maintain a consistent editing identity here. Hoserjoe (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, you have only removed critical paragraphs from the article. You didn't delete content from the "Military service" section. Onefortyone (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And when a dual identity is admitted (which does the editor no favours), to call pointing this out "elaborate", "wobbly" and "unpredictable" is merely laughable. When "BomberJoe" comes here to support "HoserJoe", on the WP:DUCK principle, it's a WP:SOCK. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the same strategy was used by user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo some months ago. During an arbitration case concerning the Elvis article, he falsely claimed to be an "uninvolved editor", though he was deeply involved in the content dispute, using his many sockpuppets in order to delete sourced material. See . Onefortyone (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Time for an investigation. We can't have this sort of thing going on. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant material 

message: I've protected the wrong version of this page for a week, or until you guys can decide what needs to be "cleaned up" here.  --Haemo (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Haemo. Jeffpw (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Onefortyone (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what links you're referring to.  There was the odd instance when I removed something irrelevant that was linked to some other unrelated source.  For example, someone who saw someone else acting drunk and falling down, or speculation about whether Elvis came from Scottish or German roots or the gossip about "full sex" or drug use.  If I removed something on-topic, I'd be please to deal with it, but I think that most of what was removed was irrelevant or unsourced material.  Some of it was outright crude and offensive. The offending material was (is?) clearly non-encyclopedic; all editing was done according to WP:5 Pillars.  Further, the entire article was grossly overweight and needed some vigourous WP:Liposuction from a disinterested 3rd party.  Hoserjoe (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically re "crude and offensive". First off, please see WP:CENSOR; second, these are subjective terms and are better approached via consensus than unilaterally. If they're unsourced, however, excise with extreme prejudice. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 11:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protected

message: To the user Hoserjoe: Please don't the use  or compare the gossip about Elvis' sex life, drug using etc. with the serious research of Elvis Presley's roots. That is absolute not on the same level. You are acting very arrogant and unfair to some people about things (research) you are obviously not too well informed about. On the other side all parties who were involved in the "roots discussion" agreed a f t e r this discussion that it could be left out without harming the article. This was not the case with the so-called "well resourced" and "serious" material about Elvis social and sex life. Instead of this very fair behavior an editing-war started or/and continued. By the way I don't know why a mentioning about the Memphis Mafia should be more relevant than a mentioning about how many instruments Elvis was able to play on what level. After all he was a musician. I think the musical aspects in this article are rather thin. It is at this point more a mix of music history, pop culture and yellow press. Many words are spent on "controverial king" about many things. But only few words are said about the very important collabortion with Leiber & Stoller. Instead of Jackie Wilson's quotation (after all he was the same age with Elvis- maybe you should state a quotation from someone  who was older and was active as a performer/musician before Elvis like Roy Brown or Crudup) you could give examples were Elvis developed (black and white) music and were he only copied it. There would be lots of examples - here are only a few:
If you consider Carl Perkins as the composer of "Matchbox" Elvis would deserve the same right with "milk cow blues" which is a mixture of the Kokomo Arnold song (words), another John Estes song from the early 30's (words and more prominent melody) and a composition by Bob Wills which was inspired proably by both songs. The intro is 100% Elvis.
Another song which was reinvented by Elvis is "blue moon of KY." by changing a waltzer into a 4/4 and adding a whole new intro to the song. Even most county bands did use Elvis' version as a role model when they covered that song.
On the other hand he copied almost tone for tone (at least the instrumental arrangement) the Coasters "girls", the Clovers "Bossa nova", and "come what may" by C. McPhatter. I could go on and on. All about his music. You forgot in this article about the main thing - the music. You could show notations, chord progressions, lead sheets etc.. - but nothing. Many famous music journalist don't know what they are talking about when it comes to analyze the music because they are not able to play any. I think it was for excample Mr. Guralnick who wrote about a guitar tuning in "feel like going home" or "lost highway" which is absolute ridiculous. In my opinion you should concentrate more on Elvis art - movies and music etc.
 87.162.41.133 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but when you say,"You forgot in this article about the main thing - the music. You could show notations, chord progressions, lead sheets etc.. ", please remember that I didn't write the article.  We are concerned here only with the undue length of the article which was straining the Wikipedia display system. It was also straining under a load of irrelevant, unencyclopedic, material. The article simply needed - and received - a haircut to get it displaying properly again. BomberJoe (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BomberJoe-HoserJoe? Similar careers & attitudes? Please don't tell me I have to apply WP:DUCK and ask for a puppet check here. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing, Rod. I have asked an admin about it. Jeffpw (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can be no doubt that BomberJoe is a sockpuppet of Hoserjoe. See  and . Onefortyone (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Persuasive, very persuasive, but I don't yet see a reason for going for the jugular. Both editors claim to have military connections; let's see if they do the honourable thing before it is forced upon them. In my day it was a bottle of Scotch and a revolver. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this doing him any favours either  --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 01:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may - the Bomber Joe moniker is one I use for aerospace and engineering contributions.  All other contributions (.e.g history, music) are hoserjoe.  It's a distinction maintained since my days as an engineering journalist and is known as a legitimate "segregated" identity as opposed to a "puppet" identity.  I'll try to make my submissions with some identity consistency.  I can see how confusing it is to those here because immediately Rodhullandemu jumps to the conclusion that there is a "military connection"!  I regret I may have caused a User to jump to such an elaborate and wobbly conclusion!  To fend off any other unpredictable conclusions, I'd like to state that I am not connected to the CIA, either.  Regardless, I will try to maintain a consistent editing identity here. Hoserjoe (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, you have only removed critical paragraphs from the article. You didn't delete content from the "Military service" section. Onefortyone (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: And when a dual identity is admitted (which does the editor no favours), to call pointing this out "elaborate", "wobbly" and "unpredictable" is merely laughable. When "BomberJoe" comes here to support "HoserJoe", on the WP:DUCK principle, it's a WP:SOCK. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, the same strategy was used by user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo some months ago. During an arbitration case concerning the Elvis article, he falsely claimed to be an "uninvolved editor", though he was deeply involved in the content dispute, using his many sockpuppets in order to delete sourced material. See . Onefortyone (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Time for an investigation. We can't have this sort of thing going on. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex life vs. Roots

message: On November 16, 2007, LaraLove said,
*The images are not all properly tagged. Some lack sources, some lack adequate fair use rationales, the infobox image should not be a fair use image. As far as the images go, I'm seeing that some of the fair use images are used in various articles and in userboxes. There needs to be a fair use rationale for each articles it is used in, individually. And fair use images are not within WP policy to be used in userboxes or any other templates. I'm giving one more week on this article. If it's still not up to standards at that time, I'm delisting it. I'll also be deleting the images from any userboxes at that time. 
As far as I can see, for more than a week nothing has happened concerning the problematic images. I am not responsible for including them. Several of them have been uploaded by my old opponent, User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW, who is under a hard ban for massively uploading copyrighted images under the pretence they were free. Several weeks ago, some of these images have been updated by Northmeister who added a fair use description. See , , . However, the entire problem has not yet been resolved. What should be done? Onefortyone (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll correct or remove the images in the next couple of days. Any comments on this? Lara❤Love 18:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Fix the errors generated by citations 192 and 193. Most likely, they are simply of the form , but the citation of the same name that actually contains the reference has been removed. You will either need to go through the page history, find what the reference was and add it to one of the two citations, or remove the two citations and find an appropriate reference elsewhere. I'd supply the corrections myself, but you seem to have protected the page, which means I can't use section editing, and I'm not going to go through the whole thing counting to 192 to find which citation it is. Thanks – Gurch 07:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to do this for almost a month. Thanks for the reminder. It's done now. Lara❤Love 08:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation errors 

message: I've delisted the article. There's just too much. Once everything has been worked out and there is a stable version, please renominate it at WP:GAN. If you believe I have made an error in delisting this article, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Regards, Lara❤Love 08:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a question. Why is the length of the article a factor for becoming GA? I am not happy when administrators say that an article is "too long to be a GA". If there is such a colorful personality such as Elvis, who has been called a mega star, the king of rock 'n' roll, a film star, a mama's boy, a sex symbol, a drug addict, etc. etc., and who achieved something of a religious cult status among his fans, the article must address all major aspects of the star's life and career. Therefore, to my mind, the length should be of no concern, especially since there are so many controversial points of view to be found in the mainstream biographies. Onefortyone (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's just too much. I have a Encyclopedia Britannica article at hand and it deals with just as much but it doesn't take as much space.Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 12:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Length isn't the sole factor, but it's definitely an issue. These points can be covered without including so much trivial information. The article is not at all focused. It's getting better, but it's still far from where it should be. I've been over this. Read my suggestions above. It's not as if this delisting blindsides anyone. It's listed as a core article and thus is included in the The Core Contest. We've got until December 5 to bring this article up to a good place. I'm extending the protection so that only I can edit it. You give me your ideas, I'll take the credit and get the cash! ;) Okay, not really. But it is listed for the contest, so anyone interested in participating, good luck. Lara❤Love 16:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Not only is the article to long, it is also filled with unsupported gossip and speculation.  I'm definitely interested in supporting any effort at cutting it back in size and removing the salacious and irrelevant content. Hoserjoe (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. When I was at school, we were taught a discipline of English language studies called "précis". It is the exact art of imparting as much information as possible as concisely as possible i.e. with the fewest words. Although its application is not the complete answer to this article's problems, it would benefit from someone going through and applying it to the piece. Ref (chew)(do) 23:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: There should be no significant changes to the article that have not first been discussed on the talk page. If the same mess from before starts back up, I'll request it be reprotected. This article can achieve FA. We just all have to work together and talk it out. Lara❤Love 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When protection is lifted