Talk:Moby/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

His religion

Latest comment: 12 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

Moby say's he believes Jesus to have been "divine" now aside from Muslims and a few random micro-religions the only people who would say that are Christians so he's a Christian. --Protostan (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"i don't even really think of myself as a christian" (http://www.moby.com/journal/2001-02-09/religion.html). If he doesnt consider himself a Christian, he isn't a Christian. Also please note the comment at the top of the categories (Ive moved it to make it more obvious) - it says "Religious categories are not to be included unless relevant to the person's public life Category:American Episcopalians". Thanks. Metao (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

At the drop of a hat I was able to find that he's given an interview to Sojourners Magazine, talked about his religion with the BBC, and does talk about the teaching of Jesus on his blog.

And there's more: check this out "I can't really know anything. Having said that, though, on a very subjective level I love Christ. I perceive Christ to be God, but I predicate that with the knowledge that I'm small and not nearly as old as the universe that I live in. I take my beliefs seriously for myself, but I would be very uncomfortable trying to tell anyone that I was right." [1].

He sees to be a humble guy who doesn't identify with the media's portrayal of what a Christian is yet he believes deeply. --Protostan (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, he is definitely a believer, I dont dispute that. What I dispute is twofold. First, he isn't a Christian in the sense that he doesn't (appear to) belong to any particular denomination, and he clearly doesn't identify himself as Christian. Second, I dispute that his faith is not relevant enough to his public image to warrant categorisation. Regarding the latter point, I could see myself being convinced otherwise - that his faith (or rather, the level of media attention given to his faith) does warrant categorisation, but how can we categorise someone who does not categorise himself? If sources contradict the man himself, we have to go with the man, right? Although we 'could' talk in the article about how his faith is reported vs how he describes it himself, as long as we are careful not to get into OR. Metao (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not all Christians belong to a denomination and amazon.com has identified him as a Christian as has Christianity Today. 71.142.250.117 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazon is not a reliable source. Christianity Today is arguably a biased source. In any case, you have not provided evidence that his faith is relevant to his public image. Even if you had, Moby does not consider himself Christian. Metao (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree if he is a Christian or not first. If necessary, we can come to relevance and whether he is Episcopalian or something else later. I agree with Metao that Moby's own descriptions override what Amazon and Christianity Today say. However this makes it difficult because Moby is ambiguous - he says "I perceive Christ to be God" but also "I don't even really think of myself as a Christian". I think there is enough doubt that we have to remove the categorisation as "Christian". Similarly, if someone tried to categorise him as "Non-Christian" there is enough doubt that we would have to remove that too. (Chorleypie (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC))

Sources With DuckDuckGo, half a dozen clicks, and three minutes, I found this and this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Both of those sources state that he is wary of calling himself a Christian, so I'm removing the categories. The content you added was very good, thank you for that. Metao (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Categorization We don't categorize based on current affiliation, thus someone who is dead still has categories. If he has been a Christian (and these sources explicitly state that he is) and it's a part of his public persona, then it should be included. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is Christian and dies remains a Christian. Someone who is Christian and changes their mind does not. He used to be a Christian. Now he isn't. Here's a photo of him from 2008 wearing a Flying Spaghetti Monster t-shirt - www.venganza.org/2008/04/moby. I think we should remove the categories. (Chorleypie (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

Chorley makes a good point - do we have a more recent source re: his faith? Faith is fluid, after all. Per http://www.moby.com/journal/2006-11-27/truly_insane.html and http://www.moby.com/journal/2006-12-21/i_think_its_odd_funny_when_people_come_m.html I don't think he would like to be categorised as an American Christian. Per http://www.moby.com/journal/2006-12-26/merry_post_christmas.html and several other pages, he dabbles in the idea of non-Christian faiths. He is certainly non-denominational. He just believes in Jesus, basically. Is that enough to be categorised as a Christian? Or are Christians serving some sort of agenda where they are trying to "file" as many celebrities as possible under their umbrella? My personal opinion is that he's a musician who happens to be interested in religion. He self-identifies as a non-Christian sort of Christian (he's basically a deist), but his faith, while interesting, is incidental. He is a musician. His faith is worth mentioning, but not categorising. Metao (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the converts category certainly requires direct evidence of a conversion. Was the guy raised non-Christian? He's a white American. Forgive me for stereotyping, but I think it's safe to assume he was raised Christian. Please provide a source to indicate that he converted to Christianity, and then provide another source to demonstrate that his conversion to Christianity forms a relevant part of his public persona (he hasn't discussed religion much on his website since about '06, far as I can tell, so please make sure that the latter source is a recent one). Metao (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Identification It's not up to us to determine if someone is really a Christian based on his t-shirts or his interest in non-Christian religion--his public statements make it clear that he has identified as one. We don't categorize based on what you die as being, except for causes, places, and years of death. His public expressions of faith have been explicit enough to be in his liner notes, so it's pretty clearly been a part of his public persona, even if it hasn't lately. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There's just too much doubt for us to categorically say now he is a Christian. Last year: "I did have a period 20-odd some years ago when I was quite a serious Christian. I taught Bible study and I went to Christian retreats. But that changed quite a long time ago." http://read.mtvhive.com/2011/05/16/interview-moby (Chorleypie (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

Sure And that's my point--we don't have to determine what he is now only what he has been. That's how categories work. If someone was born in Paris, lived in Rome for 15 years, and then became an American citizen in Los Angeles, he would be in Category:People from Paris, Category:People from Rome, and Category:People from Los Angeles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How about the category "Former Christians"? (Chorleypie (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

Citations If we can establish with sources that he is not one, then that can (and should) be added. Saying "I'm reluctant to use the word 'Christian'" or "I'm a peculiar type of Christian" are not sources that justify inclusion in that category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. That person would be born in Paris. They would have lived in Rome. They would be currently living in Los Angeles. They would not be "from" any of those places. This is why we use explicit naming in categories. If someone was a Christian, and became a Buddhist, we would not categorise them as a Christian and a Buddhist. They would be a former Christian, and a Buddhist. In the case of Moby, he himself seems unclear on his position - which would be fine, since we should be using third-party sources anyway... but, since HE is ambiguous, so are the sources. There is no consensus amongst the sources. So we cannot categorise that he is or isn't a Christian, because there are sources that indicate both ways, and no side of the issue carries more weight than any other. It is not correct to say he is. It is not correct to say he isn't. The most correct path is to not categorise. Metao (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Categorization We don't categorize based on current affiliation with a handful of exceptions. We do categorize based on someone being "from" somewhere by any of those criteria that I mentioned (birth or long-term residence.) We can (and do) categorize people based on their self-affiliation. It would be inappropriate to categorize someone's religious affiliation based on what a third party says... How would that make any sense? As you can see here, that is the only criterion to use: "Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question." Simply and frankly put, you seem ignorant of how we categorize biographies. If you disagree with these criteria (and apparently you do) then you can definitely take it up at the relevant documentation pages rather than using this as a kind of test case. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Now this is interesting. I've always assumed that to be a Christian you must believe in a god. I've read Metao's "I think its odd..." link and it seems to me that Moby is someone who tries to follow the morals of Christ, but doesn't believe in God. So does that count as a Christian? Many Buddhists try to follow Buddha's teachings but don't believe Buddha was a god. (This would also then have implications for subcategories; Moby was categorised as Episcopalian for a while, but I don't know what distinguishes them from other Christians.) (Chorleypie (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC))

Categorization For our purposes, one is a Christian if he identifies as such. See also Don Cuppit and Christian atheism. I don't know that Moby isn't a theist (source?) but even if he isn't, we will still classify him as a Christian because he has identified himself as such. It's not an encyclopedia's place to say he isn't. As for Episcopalians, that is a denomination with a central hierarchy and leadership (if a loose one), so if you belong to that church, you are an Episcopalian. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"It's not an encyclopedia's place to say he isn't." Well, isn't it equally true that it's not an encyclopedia's place to say that he IS? If it's obviously (at a minimum) inconclusive? I propose a compromise. Someone create a category for "Persons of note who may or may not be Christian." *blush* Sorry for the sarcasm. I just don't understand why this debate has to happen. Patricia Meadows (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Right It's also not our place to say that he is a Christian--exactly my point. If he goes to church every Sunday, takes Communion, and wears a cross around his neck, that would not justify inclusion in a category about Christians. If he says publicly as a part of his persona, "I am a Christian" (which he has) then we categorize him as such irrespective of church attendance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, the rules seem to have changed slightly since I last checked them, so I apologise for acting along slightly misinformed lines. The rule as quoted is correct. And, thankfully, only goes on to prove my point. The links you provided are from '97 and '03. I provided links from '06 and someone else provided one from '11. In your '03, he identifies, simultaneously, as both a Christian and a non-Christian. In my '06 articles, he refuses the classification. You seem to be interpreting the Wikipedia policy as meaning that, if at any time someone identifies as a particular faith, that they can be forever categorised as that faith (reminds me of baptism... once baptised, always a Christian...). Is this correct? Because I think this is wrong. If someone recants or chooses another identification, that is notable and should be discussed in their article, but surely this removes the justification for categorisation. My previous point stands: if the waters are muddy, we cannot be the arbiters on truth. We cannot classify. Metao (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Metao. Yes, of course that's right. I've actually lost track of what, exactly, is the category that's being disputed in this article. Unless it's something like "Possible Christians" I'm not sure why we're having a debate.Patricia Meadows (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrote for Smashing Pumpkins?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please consider revising one of the opening statements, where it suggests he wrote music for Smashing Pumpkins. I accessed the cited interview and didn't find any mention of them or Billy Corgan, for example. Perhaps you could include another citation or rephrase so it doesn't sound like he cowrote anything for the Pumpkins. -- Newagelink (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Limo (How I Met Your Mother)

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moby appeared in an episode of How I Met Your Mother called The Limo. I feel that this is important enough to be noted somewhere in section 1.6 2005–2008: Hotel, Last Night, and other work under the heading 1 Biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.194.4 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago30 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Closed as not listed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Images have appropriate tags, though there are other issues with them. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Stable. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a reference section. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Query

There are a lot of similar images - see WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, a GA criteria. Unless there is appropriate rationale for all those images, I suspect a good number could be removed. And that may help with WP:LAYOUT, another GA criteria, as the images are not laid out per image layout guidelines.

Some captions do not meet the guidelines at WP:CAP, another GA criteria, and may need tidying up. The most questionable caption is the one for the image in the Charity section, and that image may be one that is considered for removal anyway, so that may solve that caption issue. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed image per recommendation; I'll probably rework/remove some other too. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links come under Layout, which is part of the GA criteria. I'm querying the use of the Discogs and IMDB links. Wikipedia has a Moby discography, so why are readers being directed to Discogs from this page? If it is felt to have useful information that cannot be contained in Moby discography, then wouldn't that page be a more appropriate place to have the link, than this one? And what essential reliable information does IMDB have that isn't or cannot be contained on this page? SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Photography section has a bare list. This list is unreferenced, and may not comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists). SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed; All unrefed, and I doubt it would be useful referencing it all. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of very short sections, and also short paragraphs. In the "2005–2008: Hotel, Last Night, and other work" section there is a series of one sentence paragraphs. This looks untidy and unprofessional, and inhibits the flow of reading. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Done hopefully... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What have you done? SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Fail

There are a number of unsourced statements that are challengeable; example: "In 1991 and 1992 he remixed The B-52s, The Prodigy, Orbital, Pet Shop Boys, Erasure, Michael Jackson, and Ten City." The 1982 to 1985 "Music career" section is unsourced. "Until around June 2009, Moby co-owned a small restaurant and tea shop called Teany, where he occasionally would wait tables. He also organized a group of artists known as the Little Idiot Collective. Moby lives a vegan lifestyle and supports animal rights." While not everything is expected to be sourced, there are statements here that do need sourcing. On the whole it is better to source than not to source. information for this and every other article needs to be verifiable, so the information has to comke from somewhere. It is always easier to source as the information is being added, as it is presumed the editor adding the information has the source in front of them. While rough guidelines such as "there should be a cite for at least every paragraph" can be criticised as being a little too crude, at least it is preferable to there being no cites at all, and the reader left with no reassurance that the information is reliable. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 13:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Original research is when statements are made in an article that are assumed by the editors, and not directly supported by sources. "the music media ... struggled to comprehend the artist's new electronic music and refused to take it very seriously" is an example of that. The source - HitQuarters (HitQuarters) does not say that - though I can understand how it would be inferred. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 14:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a biography section and a personal life section, but no legacy or musicianship type section - see Chuck_Berry#Legacy, Courtney_Love#Musicianship, and George_Harrison#Musicianship for examples. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

General comments

@SilkTork: any progress? --Mdann52talk to me! 09:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and apologies for the delay. I have some time today, and my intention is to progress on the GANs I still have out - including looking at this one. There's a few more ArbCom matters I have yet to get through, then I'll be free. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 10:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No rush; I just wanted to make sure this had not "fallen into a void". --Mdann52talk to me! 10:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that can happen, and a ping is a good idea. I'm just having some chow mein flavoured food and looking at the Chow mein article while doing so. After which I'll be working on the GANs. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm stopping the review now. This article needs a fair bit of work. At the moment some information has been collected and placed on the page, but the information needs sorting, as some information is trivial, and odd "He was interviewed by Lucy Walker for a chapter in Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture (The MIT Press, 2008) edited by Paul D. Miller a.k.a. DJ Spooky". The prose is unclear - "...Moby decided to release a punk rock album. Released in 1996, Animal Rights..." Are we to assume that he did or did not release the punk album? Are we to assume that the album in the next sentence is that punk album, or that he changed his mind and released a different album? This is just an example. Fixing this by itself, would not address similar lack of clarity in the article. The article has information, but information, such as his musicianship and legacy, is missing. This is an article at the early stages. It feels like random information has been put into the article at different times and of different quality. Some sourced. Some not sourced. But there is no unity or control. What is needed is for someone (or a group of people) to work on the article to bring it to GA standards (see WP:GA?), and then to nominate it again. I am always willing to help out on an article where people are prepared to do some work, but at the moment this one needs a bit too much work for me. It looks like it needs building up from scratch. I will, however, keep this review open for at least a week to see what progress is being made. If I see positive progress, I'll keep it open longer, and may even join in to help out. But this does need more than a little bit of a tidy up. It need a solid overhaul. I'll pop back in seven days to see what's going on. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 14:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for delay - I've been busy elsewhere. I should have time to read over what's been done and hopefully close the review this weekend. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There still image and layout concerns. Six images of the subject which infringes WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, and not laid out per WP:Layout. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Prose remains a concern. We have too many single sentence paragraphs. These inhibit reading flow, and create an untidy and unprofessional appearance. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a copy edit. If it was just a bit here and there I would do it myself, but the whole article needs a good scrub. You can ask someone else to do it. Try asking someone at Wikipedia:Guild of copyeditors. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

We still don't have a section on his musicianship. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is still a good way from being ready to be listed. Though some work has been done there are a number of significant issues that haven't been addressed. As some work has been done I will keep the review open for a little while longer. I will look back after seven days to see what progress has been made, and we can discuss then if it is worth keeping the review open any longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No work done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Closing as no work has been done. Article can be renominated after some of the issues mentioned above have been addressed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Love life (or lack thereof)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was most disappointed reading this to find no ~~gossip or idle speculation~~ info about any current or past partner(s), perhaps he is asexual, celibate (not that it would preclude romance) or has a different interest for each day of the week? I think this is about the only biography I have read on Wiki that doesn't at least mention marital status. --wintonian ^talk 16:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, he was in a band with Margaret Fiedler from Laika

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found Margaret Fiedler's LinkedIn, and it says she was in Caeli Seoul with Moby as teenagers. Just a bit of trivia, dunno if anyone wants to add it to the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Musical Influence

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could the part about him in regards to music be extended? I lately heard his "Natural Blues" song and that was great, especially the lyrics. It would be nice to read up more about his influence in his music. 2A02:8388:1601:E000:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131004130110/http://archive.sojo.net/special/multimedia/audio/061004_moby/player.html to http://archive.sojo.net/special/multimedia/audio/061004_moby/player.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Moby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo056_moby-we-are-all-made-of-stars_music
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Music/02/08/moby/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.christianitytoday.com/iyf/advice/mediaqa/19.36.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.amend.org/pages/about.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bethabe.org/About_the_Institute100.html
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.freepress.net/news/15579
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lalettredelaphotographie.com/archives/by_date/2011-09-06/3697/exclusive-moby-talks-to-elizabeth-avedon
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lalettredelaphotographie.com/archives/by_date/2011-09-06/3697/exclusive-moby-talks-to-elizabeth-avedon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Blunt Talk

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was surprised to find no reference (not even in the talk) to his recurring appearance as 'himself' in the TV show Blunt Talk for which he also wrote the theme music Adagio67 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Blunt Talk and Moby ..

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Need a citation from a knowledgeable source re: Moby participation in 'Blunt Talk,' an outrageously funny and clever television series starring Patrick Stewart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.172.188 (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Moby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Moby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Moby being a birthday boy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Extensive Personal Life section

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is this an encyclopedia article or a biography? The Personal Life section just keeps going with inane details while the same section in more notable people are much more succinct. 2A02:1812:1427:2600:29C6:568:18CA:A6BE (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)