Andyprod1

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, all ... I had seen some previously posted "commentary" and assumed that was allowed to some degree. Am now more aware of citing sources, so that shouldn't be an issue in the future. Thank you, Ward, for setting me straight on these matters.

February 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Buddy Holly. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry all ... have made the addition to his New York life section and added a published source for the material.

March 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to John Lennon. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The additional material you added isn't cited anywhere (except in a incorrectly formatted link that doesn't work). I don't believe I'm the only one questioning whether or not this material in valid for inclusion here. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies ... BeatlesBible.com is a real site, and the link to the home page and other pages aren't broken. I added a bit of a legitimately published interview with Rolling Stone, issue cited in the reference, to "Walls and Bridges" to minimize confusion, and used only a snippet of the interview that was directly relevant to the section. (There wasn't a discussion section for it; remove if you think it's not appropriate.) The main John Lennon section has quotes added, and I like these, as they are his words and shed some light on his personality and history of certain parts of his life.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Elton_John_-_Superior_Sound.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Elton_John_-_Superior_Sound.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Andyprod1/The Superior Sound of Elton John has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John.
• To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC The Superior Sound of Elton John (August 17)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John.
• To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
• You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Tazerdadog (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Andyprod1, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Crocodile Rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Here and There (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John

Hello Andyprod1. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Superior Sound of Elton John".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Superior Sound of Elton John}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm Dan56. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Wild, the Innocent & the E Street Shuffle, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andyprod1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Frank Vincent IMDB.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Frank Vincent IMDB.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Frank Vincent IMDB.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Frank Vincent IMDB.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Andyprod1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andyprod1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andyprod1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Border Song, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. I note that you've been repeatedly warned about this over the years. Please take it to heart and begin including sources. TJRC (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think a reference was needed, as it was already listed in the song list under the article about Individually & Collectively. I do not see the need to flag me on something that was already posted and apparently approved prior to my cross referencing it. ??? 75.141.218.250 (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, earlier on I had some issues with sources, but you should also note it has been a very long time since the last notice and I have learned much and made significant corrections so as to be careful about citing reputable sources. 75.141.218.250 (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I linked to the album's Wikipedia entry, exactly as did the one listing about the Willie Nelson cover version. I fail to see the difference in what I did versus that post, and it apparently is not being flagged. Request you explain please or kindly restore my post. 75.141.218.250 (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The article is already flagged as needing improvements on sources. The fact that other sourcing issues are present in the article, such as perhaps the Willie Nelson version, is not an invitation to make that problem worse. TJRC (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

And how exactly did I make it worse? You are deflecting from responding to my reply. Further, I went back and checked and do not see any flags present on the article in question. Please show me where the article is flagged as needing improvements. I do not accept that I was in the wrong here. Andyprod1 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Added YouTube channel source link to official 5th Dimension channel, audio provided by current label Arista (which owns the rights to most of the Bell Records catalog). Andyprod1 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Andyprop1, you seem dead-set on including this. Do you have any instance of it being covered in a third-party reliable source, independent of the work itself? That's what's required for inclusion.

Please have a look at WP:COVERSONG (which I unfortunately red-linked as WP:COVERSONGS in my edit summary). It sets out what's required.

There's a reason for this: the article is not just supposed to set out facts that are true; it's supposed to set out fact that are both true and that have been noted somewhere else as well. If the recording of the song has not merited enough attention to be mentioned in anything that qualifies under WP:RS, it's not worth covering in the article either. Wikipedia is not the place to cover material for the first time.

Coverage in a reliable independent source provides a built-in gatekeeping function of making sure something is worth writing publicly about. If the Fifth Dimension cover has been written about (RS), sure, it can be included, and it ought to be. But if it has not, Wikipedia is not where it should be covered for the first time. This criterion keeps articles like this from turning into listcruft.

If you have such source, please do re-add it; it will be a genuine improvement. But if you do not have such a source, please, you need to stop. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So an actual bona fide existing example isn't enough? You need something WRITTEN about it to merit inclusion, which isn't in itself proof enough if you ask me. That the artist has an ACTUAL released, recorded version should be verification enough. AND further, the version I posted was the one included in the Wikipedia entry on the album, but fine ... setting that aside, the editorial policy is lacking a certain amount of sense. If this is to be the overarching determining factor, you're going to exclude cross references to countless other versions of various works by various artists someone might find interesting or enlightening, simply because at some point the editorial powers that be here decided it they needed to be "written about" to merit inclusion, when a HUGE amount of those recordings or other versions simply exist and were never "written about," or if they were such records have been lost to time and are no longer accessible. Fine. Reverse it. Whatever. Andyprod1 (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying: it's along the lines of, "Wow, this hasn't really been written about, and I think it should be." I don't necessarily disagree with that; it's only about whether Wikipedia is the right place for it. Wikipedia by design is about capturing information that has been already published somewhere else. The requirement for reliable and independent sourcing is one of the things that gate-keeps that. It's not just about whether something is correct or not; it's about whether it's correct and has garnered sufficient attention in published sources outside of Wikipedia to justify being included in Wikipedia. That's why simply finding an example is not enough.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't write about it; only that Wikipedia isn't the right place for you to write about it. Other sites might be (like the sadly now-defunct Covers Project or Secondhand Songs) come to mind.

I've had a number of topics that I've felt analogously about, so I know the feeling. TJRC (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the counsel on this. Helps to have someone out there who understands and gets where I'm coming from, and also has the Wikipedia experience to balance one's enthusiasm for a subject with proper protocol. Cheers. Andyprod1 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I now see you were referring to the Border Song article, so point taken there. That said, my addition was supportable, as there is a link to an article (Individually and Collectively) which has not been flagged for reliability issues, and what I added is fully supportable on a variety of levels (there are multiple places to find track listings, photos of the Bell Records label with the song listed on it, etc.). If my post was questionable, a.) I wouldn't have posted it and b.) you'd be justified in reverting it. The fact remains what I posted is accurate and supportable. If other things in Border Song need work, that's understandable. Those needed fixes do not alter the fact that my edit was solid. I'd appreciate your acknowledgement of this and restoring my edit. Andyprod1 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm independently trying to find any qualifying source that would justify including this; but I'm not coming up with much. The two best ones I can find still don't seem make the cut:

• This 2016 blog entry published by The Guardian. The fact that it's a blog is one strike against it (although perhaps if one were to look into it, it might turn out that the author, Caroline Sullivan, is an established subject-matter expert, which could justify using it; but I don't see any support for that); the more serious problem is it's literally one mere line in her reminiscence about the 5th Dimension: "They even gave Elton John’s Border Song some sophisticated welly." That's the classic type of passing mention that doesn't reach the required level.
• There's also this listicle "Elton John: His 40 Greatest Songs" at WMGK (and repeated at WMMR); but again, it's just a listicle and also only a passing mention: "It’s been covered by Eric Clapton, the Fifth Dimension and even the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin". So again, falling short.

A search on Google Books ("5th+dimension"+"border+song"&tbm=bks), which often turns up good possibilities, looks fruitless. It has hits, but they're simply noting that the track exists in an exhaustive listing of tracks on the album; nothing that specifically calls it out as noteworthy.

I'll keep looking (a little), but I'm starting to doubt anything will turn up. I'm thinking that the 5D cover simply doesn't reach the level of coverage to merit inclusion under the guideline. TJRC (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

First, as someone who's still learning the ropes and follow the labyrinth of policy and protocol, I appreciate your patience with me as I've been endeavoring to figure things out. I can be a bit of a bulldog on occasion, so bear with me. Since you provided the established guidelines, of course I want to respect and work within those and I know you're doubtless busy with lots more to do other than pull me back off the ledge on my rather determined tangent. I'll keep an eye out as well, but as you noted based on the guide criteria, the minor bits you were able to find mean that, while mildly interesting, it arguably is just another cover version and probably doesn't rise to level of inclusion. Consider me in agreement. Andyprod1 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, and you might find this as amusing as I did, while we're on the subject, I hopped on to SecondHandSongs just for fun and it turns out there 40 (!) various versions of Border Song listed! I had NO idea it was that widely covered. I mean, it's a good song, but it's not one of Elton's "hits," at least not one of his better-known ones. People like it I suppose. Andyprod1 (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess when it's been out there for 40+ years, it's just bound to accrue some attention. I was a big Elton John fan in the late 70s and 80s, but this one never grabbed me, either. I think I first encountered it on his Greatest Hits album, so I guess someone thought it was one of his top ones.

If you like Elton John covers, I commend a couple of compilations to you: Two Rooms; and Restoration, which I recently heard. Restoration is a country-music rendition of a number of EJ/BT songs. I'm not a country music fan, but I found a lot of them quite enjoyable. I had not realized until writing this note that there had been a Revamp as well.

I really enjoy covers. I love to hear what a second artist has done with a first one's work. A lot of people see it as desecrating the work or something, but I often find both enjoyable in their own right. TJRC (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations! I do like Two Rooms, which I've had for a while. Didn't much care for Revamp, but I'm much more into Restoration. For some reason, I think I respond to the more "organic" nature of the song interpretations on that one. But some of the Two Rooms tracks are really great versions! And not everyone covers Elton well, so this is an exceptionally great collection! Andyprod1 (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)