User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2015

Lord Upminster
Hi JG66 could you please help me to remove a load of "waffle" from the article Lord Upminster, and add some helpful sources. There may be a barnstar in it for ya!. All the best wishes Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Bit stretched for time right now, with things I'm committed to here and in RL, but I'll take a look soon. To be honest, all I imagine I'll be able to contribute in the way of sources is a few more reviews for a Reception section, perhaps. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

the Beatles discography
Do you realize that you're suggesting that the Beatles had 22 #1 singles in the U.S.? It is well established fact that they had 20. Two songs cannot occupy the #1 spot at the same time, and For You Blue definitely did not reach #1. - Bossanoven (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It definitely did, per Nicholas Schaffner, the Castleman & Podrazik book, not to mention here. Also, I'm sure if you count up the number of US #1s at the AllMusic Awards page you could well come up with a different total – at least, they give For You Blue as a Hot 100 #1. What's actually needed for the "US" column with Long & Winding/For You Blue and for Something/Come Together (and for the latter single's UK chart peaks also) is a single row, combining the sides, with the peaks sitting midway down – i.e. Something/Come Together combined reached #4 in the UK, the songs didn't separately peak at #4. JG66 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the liner notes to 1 (Beatles album), there are actually 21 U.S. chart toppers among the 27 total songs on the disc. But I think if you look at any Billboard chart reference books or Guinness World Record books, they will state it as 20 in the U.S. It quickly becomes obvious that Something is the difference between 20 and 21. - Bossanoven (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but who cares what the liner notes to a compilation CD says? (Would we trust liner notes that said a song was number 1 for five weeks when it quite clearly wasn't? I remember that issue coming up with Elvis' Gold #1 compilation or whatever it was called.)


 * I hear what you're saying, but I think you're focusing too much on that magic number. Fact is, Something was number 1 on Billboard (listed first, in fact), with Come Together, on 29 November 1969. For You Blue was listed with Long and Winding Road when that single topped the Hot 100 for two weeks. If that's how the singles were listed when they topped Billboard, then of course it's how we should impart the information when, as in that Discography, we're listing each side of a single. Put it this way, count up the number of Beatles UK top 10 hits based on the peaks given in that discography and then compare it with an official count – I bet the number 4 sitting next to both Something and Come Together throws the total out there too. (They charted together at number 4.) As I've said, what is needed in such a situation is that effect whereby a single "1" appears in the US column for these double A-sides. JG66 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't revert your changes, but you can expect that someone else will. - Bossanoven (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish guitar and introducing.....
Re: this edit, I don't suppose you're thinking about the intro to "Bungalow Bill", which is the "Spanish guitar" tape on a Mk II Mellotron? In the song itself, I think it's just bog standard acoustic, isn't it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the Mellotron "Spanish guitar" tape … I was following the mention under album content: "The Spanish guitar at the beginning of the recording was overdubbed later by Harrison." Apart from Lewisohn, I've read about this somewhere else – and it certainly doesn't sound like a steel-string to my ears. JG66 (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article on Bungalow Bill says it's a Mellotron, though the source is about the worst example of a source I can think of! Planet Mellotron says it's a 'Tron too, but most people wouldn't treat that as a reliable source (though given Andy Thompson's expertise in the subject matter, I frankly would!) Let me go and grab MacDonald. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloody 'ell – no, that's right, it must be the Mellotron key. Someone go tell Lewisohn! I only added the instrument in Personnel because I saw the mention under Side One in the article. Talk about learning something new every day … JG66 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Hello, I've noticed that you've done a great job in expanding a great deal of George Harrison's singles, and I was wondering if you would like to help out in adding to some of Paul McCartney's solo work. None of his singles are up to good-article status, and I am hoping to expand a few of his songs, such as "Band on the Run". If you don't want to, I don't mind, but I am having trouble finding worthwhile information. Thanks. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Thanks for the compliment – that's very kind of you! Yeah, I'm fascinated by the Beatles' first decade as solo artists (far more so than I am by their career as a band, in fact), and I've always hoped to do more work on Starr and Lennon articles. Have to confess, I find McCartney's releases the least interesting to write about – he just seemed to churn them out. But sure, I'll try to help.


 * I've got recording info I could add (from Madinger & Easter's Eight Arms to Hold You, and Bruce Spizer's The Beatles Solo on Apple Records), and stuff for a Reception section in most cases (via Rock's Backpages and a couple of other sources). And I've got Howard Sounes' McCartney bio Fab and Keith Badman's Beatles Diary Volume 2. I'll take a look at "Band on the Run" anyway … JG66 (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Admittedly, McCartney's solo work was pretty spotty, but I think at its peak it is the strongest to come out of all four. Just personal preference, though. I also have a McCartney book about his time in the '70s (Man on the Run), but specific song information is hard to come by. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On "Band on the Run", I was pretty proud of how it was coming along. Generally though, as someone who has never played an instrument or studied musical structure, I don't think I would do the song justice in explaining the composition. If you have found anything though, it would definitely help... I think I've found all I could at this time. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to apologize if I nominated the article before you could add more; I took a look at some other GA Beatles-related articles ("Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song)", "You Never Give Me Your Money", etc.) and I felt it was sufficient enough for the rank. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of The London Session for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The London Session is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The London Session until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Similar Skin
Hi JG66,

Can you take a look at Similar Skin and double check my work? I tried adding some of the links that were pointed out in "The London Session" AfD discussion, but that's the first time I've used Album ratings and I'm not sure I did it right.

Also, I have a general question. How does the template handle reviews that don't seem to give any rating? For example, the Similar Skin metacritic page says Cokemachineglow give the album an "80"; Yet, the actual review does not give any rating at all that I can find. Then there's this All Music review, but once again no rating is given (unless the rating is actually "zero" stars). I would've added these to the template as well, but I wasn't sure about what to enter for the "revscore" parameter. Anyway, there's no great rush here. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Sorry to take a while. That looks great, certainly enough to make me remove the ref improve tag. Thanks! JG66 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Time is on my side. Do you know if there is a way to use that "album rating" templates when there does not seem to be a rating given by the reviewer? The AllMusic review for the album only has stars for "user ratings"; There doesn't seem to be an "AllMusic rating". - Marchjuly (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, well AllMusic always give a ratings, in my experience. Which is what made me think that the Similar Skin write-up was simply filler/descriptive. (Put it this way, AllMusic's reviews consistently appear at Metacritic, but this one didn't.)
 * With Cokemachineglow, that's does appear at Metacritic, and the latter tells us it's on the acclaimed side of favourable. The album rating template was changed a couple of years ago – pretty much in secret, if truth be told. Guidelines there used to allow for "very favorable", "favorable", "mixed", "unfavorable", etc., but a handful of editors gained consensus to only have scores and alphabetical ratings, without putting the word out to any relevant project pages such as Music or Albums. (Here's the discussion. Okay, a few editors became involved in the discussion, but I don't know how they heard about it, because nothing was posted at the more high-traffic forums.) As a result, I have to say, I tend to ignore that new guideline. (Of course, if we were inundated with reviews containing numerical scores at Similar Skin, that might be different.)


 * Bit more information than you were after, there, maybe! JG66 (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and the link about the "new" guideline. I wasn't sure how to make those two reviews work which is why I didn't try and add them. "A man's got to know his limitations", even when it comes to Wikipedia editing. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Source for Lennon's quote on McCartney album.
Hi, sorry for bothering you like this but I'm having trouble adding the source citation that you asked (using the visual editor). I'm a bit new here but I was able to find the entire source article from Rolling Stone. It's here: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/one-guy-standing-there-shouting-im-leaving-19700514 and is a great article for supplementary information. Quite a few citations refer to the article from books. I was able to create a citation but wasn't able to move it into the quote box. Thank you very much for your time! I think this is what you were looking/asking for...

Zreh (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't worry, I'll do it as you've provided the link! And I wasn't asking you to do anything. I just meant that if we're directly quoting something that carries asterisks over expletives, well, we can only reproduce how it appears in that particular source. Thanks anyway, that's great. I'll fix it. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Radha Krsna Temple (album)
An issue has arisen regarding this nomination when someone when to promote it for April Fool's Day. Please visit right away if you want to this run on schedule. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for The Radha Krsna Temple (album)
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Q review
Hi! Thanks for adding those scores for the Springsteen albums. Do you have access to the words/prose? It would make a great addition to articles like Born in the U.S.A., which lacks criticism to balance what seems to be unanimous praise from critics. Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yeah, I've come across a swag of Q mags, courtesy of my brother's collection from the late '80s/early '90s. I'm on the move now and over the next week, but when I get a chance, I'll definitely add something from Richard Williams at Born in the USA - his rating is so off-message relative to the other critics cited there, it begs a comment or two. JG66 (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Hello JG! Not really sure what to follow up the hello with, so I'll address your previously asked messages I didn't answer at the time...


 * Re:W&B backstory: I'll need to check the history as I can't remember if I removed the box from Egg based the person's rationale or of my own accord. The reason why I removed it from Egg was that the template doc (which might have/have not been changed since) said the box was optional. I think at the time I thought that since reviews are turned into prose the box wasn't needed. That being said, if another user re-added the box I wouldn't object.


 * Re:inclusion as WP The Beatles article/use of artist navbox: Way back when I first started working on Beatles articles, I added the banner to any article that mentioned some form of contribution by a Beatle. I probably should've took a step back and thought what really made an article a part of the project. As a result, I think the confusion stems from me adding (spamming in this case?) the banner to a lot of talk pages... I feel that based on George's contributions to Tana Mana and "Early 1970" they definitely should be classified as Harrison articles. (Criteria might have been suggested before in the archives of WT:Beatles.)
 * On the subject of navboxes, if an article is linked in the navbox, the article should carry the navbox, IMO. That's the way I see it, at least - there might be something about this in a navbox doc somewhere.

Hopefully(!) that has cleared up your previous questions. Thank you by the way for taking Egg to GA status. After my rather long absence, I should be back for good this time. Yeepsi (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * it's great to hear from you! Wow, those queries of mine you mention take me back … Thanks for the replies. And no probs with Back to the Egg. It had to go for a second attempt (from memory, the first reviewer ignored the rewrite), but I really enjoyed working on that one. I seem to warm to album and song articles where the artist is up against it and/or the work wasn't well-received. (Always makes for a more entertaining story, I find.) Anyway, it's good to see you back here, Y. JG66 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Be Here Now (song)
The article Be Here Now (song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Be Here Now (song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Beatleswhobeachboys -- Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Goodbye GA
Hi JG66, I was wondering what's still left to do on "Hello, Goodbye". I'm kind of stuck as to what else could be added. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm just tinkering away with the Promo films section – apart from a couple of minor details to fix elsewhere, I think that'll be it. Bit concerned, though, about Personnel being sourced to Guesdon & Margotin, when there are acknowledged authorities on the Beatles who offer musician and production credits, such as Mark Lewisohn and Ian MacDonald. (Right or wrong – I know reputations can be deceiving.) I had a slight issue regarding this while giving "Something" FA (apparently an FA) a much-needed rewrite, so that's what flags it with me at "Hello, Goodbye".


 * With the Promo films section, btw, I'm thinking there might be enough to allow for an image from the best-known clip – say, when the hula dancers are on the stage. I notice we have a non-free image at Strawberry Fields Forever and I was thinking of including one at "Hey Jude" once I've added the necessary "critical commentary". It might not be possible, at "Hello, Goodbye" or "Hey Jude", but it would be a nice addition if there's sufficient commentary/discussion to justify the non-free content. JG66 (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The picture would definitely be nice - if I can find another source for the personnel, I'll add it. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I just found the sources for MacDonald on Google Books and added them. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's ready to roll now. In fact I was just about to put it up for GA review and add your username too, but couldn't work out how to co-nominate …
 * Aside from adding loads more info, I've changed so many things since your nomination (as I'm sure you've noticed). Is there anything there you want to discuss? The changes under Charts, for instance (here and here) – to me, they're important in the interest of historical accuracy. Not only that but the template (which we're not obliged to use) renders the chart name and nationality as, say, "Norway (VG-lista)" – which would be fine if the column heading read "Country (chart name/compiler)", but it doesn't. So to correspond with the heading "Chart", seems to me it has to be "Norwegian VG-lista Singles" etc. JG66 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK: I also think the article's ready. I'll do a little searching to see how to co-nominate. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just asked IndianBio how to co-nominate - you have to put the on the talk page, save, then edit the nominator section. I'll go do that now. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice one, BW-BB – it's up there now! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cool - I wasn't sure if it was going to work. Now all we have to do is wait. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

White Album lead
There seems to have been an awful lot of tinkering of this article's lead since my original draft for GA. Perhaps we should blow it up and start again? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ha! Yep, it's had its fair share of heavy foot traffic, hasn't it? Not good.


 * Personally, I've always thought the Background and Recording sections needed something more, because it's a very MacDonald-esque view we're giving – i.e., Rishikesh was a mere blip; back to London/back to the drugs; sessions were a misery. In fact, Rishikesh was the last extended period of unity among the band members – it was massive, and that's the background to the album (not Sgt. Pepper's success as such). MacDonald likes to paint Lennon as LSD-drenched up until India when in fact John was evangelical about T.M. after meeting Maharishi the previous August, probably more so than George; it's just that MacD can understand LSD but he can't comprehend the spiritual influence that consumed the Beatles. So I can't help thinking that giving that and other areas the required depth, and then adding to the Lead accordingly, might keep interference to a minimum. I mean: if people see everything/more laid out authoritatively, they'll be less likely to jump in on the Lead, say, and add info that doesn't even appear in the article body.


 * That's probably not what you wanted to hear(?). It's been on my mind since a) falling back in love with the White Album about 3 months ago, and b) since you and I were discussing expanding Break-up of the Beatles (which got me heading to The Beatles in India and realising that too needed work – which got me onto Sour Milk Sea, which got me onto Hey Jude …) I take your point here, but at the same, I'm thinking there's plenty missing in the article and, quite conceivably, the Lead could easily stretch to a fourth para (like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, All Things Must Pass and others) once the main body's fleshed out. What do you think? JG66 (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Goodbye
Nice one! Keep up the good work.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  01:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Goodbye GA Passed!
The article passed - yay! It was a fun project to work on: I was always very nostalgic about this one because it was one of my favorite Beatles songs when I was younger. On a side note, if you'd be interested in doing another collab, I would be very willing to help out. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi yeah, blimey, that was quick! I know the feeling, when you get an article promoted and it's a song or album that's pretty special. "Hello, Goodbye" doesn't do a whole lot for me, I have to confess – a fine performance and a great record, to use the old parlance, but not a great song, imho. Anyway, I don't want to take anything away from your satisfaction. (Not only that, but I'm probably just underestimating the track, in that way that everyone tends to do with the Beatles because they set the bar so darn high.)


 * I'd like to work with you again on song articles, for sure. As you can probably tell, I do like to give these articles everything, rather than looking to just scrape by on what's required of a GA. I tend to look at FAs and/or keep an eye on the FACs when they're underway, and aim for that standard – because I try to focus on doing justice to the subject: "Good" or "Featured" just happens to reflect the article's quality rating as recognised by others, but every single article's "featured" once it's on the encyclopaedia, as far as I'm concerned. So, when it comes to music from this era, made by all or each of the Beatles (or by the Beach Boys, Stones, Byrds, Band, Small Faces, Dylan, etc), the subject deserves the extra attention, given its impact, scope and legacy. And if it takes months to pull everything together for what happens to be termed a Good Article, then that's fine. Admittedly, I don't get the impression that many other editors here see things the way I do on this point … Anyway, I hope all this explains my fussiness/occasional grumpiness – I'd completely understand it if you're thinking, "Forget it, I'm going the easy route"! JG66 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah - when I work on articles, I try to get as much info as possible, but my resources are kind of limited (basically to websites, Google Books, and a couple of books I own at home). Either way, I definitely want to boost many of those classic artists' songs (Beatles, Beach Boys, Who, Kinks, etc.) to higher quality. As for "Hello, Goodbye," I think it is one of their better pop releases - I guess its just the divisive nature of the song! :) Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Derek and the Dominos
OK. "Dog" was funny. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sour Milk Sea
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sour Milk Sea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sour Milk Sea
The article Sour Milk Sea you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sour Milk Sea for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Calvin999 -- Calvin999 (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

All clear
Here are the results of SMcCandlish's formal complaint against me. Admin page: Talk:SmC:  Talk: Darkfrog: That could have gone better. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, I just had to run and hide – it didn't seem as though the discussion was going anywhere. From what I've seen of SMcCandlish's input on the MoS talk page and elsewhere, he simply wants to shut down all discussion, as if it's some sort of a threat. And if an unflattering comment about Wikipedia in The Guardian is so abhorrent and demands attention, then so might the ridicule I've read over the years regarding how the encyclopaedia's something of a haven for control freaks. (Some editors would do well to take those comments seriously, I'd say.)
 * My approach is, if a consensus has been established and the argument is so sound, then a) why be so averse to providing a link to it, and b) it certainly should be robust enough to withstand subsequent debate. So, as I tried to tell him, his tactics were automatically weakening his argument, in my mind anyway. JG66 (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The sad part is that now that I've had a few days (and a chance to reread his long-as-anything posts), I think I finally get what he was talking about. I think he believes punctuation-by-sense="British" and punctuation-by-original-position="logical" and that therefore "British"≠"logical." He just wasn't showing sources that shared that belief or saying why the sources that contradicted it should be disregarded.  I think I could've broken that down for him if I'd had another two days to figure out how to phrase it.
 * I'll tell you what I told Curly: If you guys want to get back to working out an intro sentence for WP:LQ, you can now do it without making sure you have enough Valium. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Circles (George Harrison song)
The article Circles (George Harrison song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Circles (George Harrison song) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Coolmarc -- Coolmarc (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good grief, not again ...
Sorry about that. Mr Stephen (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ah, it's good of you to drop by! Have to say, I do find myself having to check articles each time for instances where your changes inadvertently combine separate refs … So I'm afraid you saw a grumpy reaction from me that time!
 * By the way, I'd got used to you standardising the look of ISBNs so that they all ended in two blocks of four digits followed by a single digit, but now you seem to be doing something different, is that right? I could be wrong about this, admittedly (perhaps it wasn't you), but the thing is I started following your (or someone else's) example with the ISBNs. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't often see references of the page 1, 2 variety, and obviously it is less often that an article also includes a page 1–2 reference.  But that is partly why I check the edits; alas, sometimes I miss it. The ISBN field lengths vary according to an arcane set of rules, they are not fixed.  Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Before the Flood
I understand putting Dylan first (he should not have been moved to second), but why did you rearrange the order of the members of the Band? I think they should be in alphabetical order. Putting Robbie second places the reference in the wrong place too. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob. Well yes, the main reason for the change was after seeing Dylan moved in the order. But the album artwork does give Robertson first and then the order as I've put it. (Hey, I'm pro Levon and Richard, as a rule, so it's certainly not to boost Robbie's status …) As I wrote in my comment there, I'd understand an argument for going with Danko/Helm/Hudson/Manuel/Robertson, but given how they're listed in the album credits, seems it should be agreed on the talk page first? JG66 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To go to the talk page seems like a lot of work for something very small, so I'll just leave it. I will move the reference, though.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Songs by George Harrison book cover.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Songs by George Harrison book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles
Hi, and wow, thank you for all of the work listed on your user page. Great contributions to the Beatles and Harrison's legacy. Thanks (I guess) for the revert on the first mention of The Beatles. I took a quick look at the discussions you linked me to and after seeing some of the comments don't want to get into that morass. My reasoning was that the first mention of the band should be capitalized, with mentions after that with the 'the' in lower-case. Can there be a refining of the question, or a new question if it hasn't been posed before, to make the first mention on a Beatles article the capitalized version? Thanks. Randy Kryn 11:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, yes "morass" would just about cover it. (I thought 's comment with their revert at Abbey Road conveyed the situation very well!) I was actually pro "The Beatles" at all mentions, which surprises me now. The good thing about it all was that GabeMc (the initiator of the change, now retired) did a good job of getting word out to a helluva lot of editors – I was impressed with that, you know The Community Has Spoken. Really can't comment on the first-mention exception, I'm afraid. I can't see there would be too many takers, but I could be wrong.


 * Thanks for your compliments, btw. That's very kind of you. Go well, JG66 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't that be the Community Has Spoken? Anyway, as for first mentions, I suspect that would be a "no". I was actually convinced to join the "The" side and made a few comments early in the initial discussion. But then it went on. And on. And on. I can't find the discussion anymore but I believe it actually made the news off-Wiki, and not in a complimentary way, showing how things are done here. Our manual of style says The Beatles for the article name but the consensus for any article text mention to be the Beatles, except for The Beatles, aka the White Album, which was another fight (what's the title? what's the common name?). freshacconci</b> talk to me  15:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! Great stuff, God, didn't it just go on and #$%^ on? As I say, credit where it's due for Gabe's efforts, but there's no doubt there was a massive powerplay element involved (which I'm sure those outside sources picked up on). JG66 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm going to have to spend some time with that discussion some day soon. The Hillary Rodham Clinton/Hillary Clinton name debate the last couple of years was another one of those knock-down drag-out editor points-of-view fights. The idea of capitalizing the first mention on a page might make everyone happy as a compromise, but maybe not. But one place I do think the name 'The Beatles' might be capitalized is in the title of the side-template The Beatles history (which is now visibly entitled 'History of the Beatles'). Since that's not an in-line capitalization, but a template name, why not capitalize that one? There's no discussion on the template's talk page. The 'Hillary Rodham Clinton' visible template, by the way, survived the middle-name battles with its 'Rodham' entact. Good to meet some of the Beatles crowd here, thanks for your work. I got into this earlier today when I capitalized the title of the article on the BBC radio programme I'd never heard of, The Beeb's Lost Beatles Tapes, maybe a page that needs more good attention. Thanks again, Randy Kryn 1:33, 19 November 2015 (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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Revert
Well? At least you provided an adequate summary as to why you were undoing my edit, unlike the first person who seemingly did not acknowledge my reasoning behind that edit, and the second person not even providing an edit summary when undoing my edit. ― C.Syde  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Re:Hi & thanks
Hi JG. After adding an article to the noms list, I have a look at those up for review and the number never seems to shrink. (Maybe I'm just looking at the wrong times...) Thanks for the heads up on "Oo You", I must've missed that. I hope all is good on your end. Yeepsi (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

George Harrison
Hi. Thanks for your interest in the George Harrison article, and for all your George Harrison related articles - you are doing good work. I am currently working on improving the George Harrison article - if you look in the history, you'll see I am a significant contributor to that article, and took it to GA level some years ago. I have worked on FA articles, taking Covent Garden to FA. I have been around a while, I'm an admin, and was a member of ArbCom. As such, I am not a vandal who needs to be reverted ;-) If you have concerns about the way this article is going, please raise your concerns either on the talkpage, or directly with me - I assure you, I will not bite you, and we can discuss things in a collegiate and supportive manner. Regards  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you've taken offence at my reverting your changes at the Harrison article – I certainly don't mean (or take) such reverts as an implication that the editor in question is any way a vandal. I know your work well, and I've very much enjoyed working with you in the past on Harrison and Beatles GAs.
 * But those edits to the Lead merit discussion first, in my opinion, as I stated in my comment. For instance, the Beatles, whether collectively or individually, are described as English (not British) in many FAs – the Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and more – and in all the GAs I've seen. So I'm in no doubt that many other editors and all the reviewers involved agree that "English" is the appropriate term. And with your changes in the article body at George Harrison, I guess I was growing concerned about their effect on the article as a whole. For instance, you've introduced a different citation style (in that in all other instances, books appear under Sources, not in the individual citations); the Clapton/Gently Weeps detail repeats a point made earlier on; you're repeating wikilinks that have also appeared previously …
 * So: a) I'd fully expect a polite revert and "take it to talk" (and have received such treatment very recently, in fact); and b) while I think there's no end of things that need fixing at the article, and at Paul McCartney, the Beatles and Sgt. Pepper for that matter, I do make a point of announcing my intentions upfront when it comes to rewriting or making significant changes to high-profile FAs.
 * But again, I apologise if the reverts came across as offensive. I know I've mentioned it before, but your GAR for All Things Must Pass was absolutely invaluable, as far as teaching me some important lessons here – and I've got a stack of Harrison/Beatles articles up at GAN (getting roundly ignored), which I'd welcome your input on any day, if you were at all interested. So I don't doubt your experience and standards for one minute. Best, JG66 (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A musical editor!
I have read some of your articles (I started with the page about the Soulful Strings) and I knew I had to say thank you for the quality work! I am interested in preserving 1960s music and have written a good chunk of articles. I aspire to bring some more articles (I have two at the moment) to GA, and maybe start more serious editing to some Beatles songs, particularly those featured on Rubber Soul. I was wondering if you had opinions on some books I should get, regarding the Beatles or 60s music in general. Perhaps in the future we can discuss more about other musical topics, I would really enjoy the opportunity! Best of luck.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's great to hear from you – especially when you come here with such generous compliments. My nominations seem to be forever ignored on the GAN pile, so your encouragement is much appreciated – thank you! Like you, my thing's '60s music; it just so happens that when I started here in January 2012 I'd got Martin Scorsese's George Harrison documentary for Christmas and the habit stuck: meaning I've very rarely strayed from that original focus of Harrison/Beatles articles. (A few months earlier and it would've been the Band or the Byrds or Ry Cooder; before then, probably the Stones …)
 * I think it would be great to see some of the Rubber Soul tracks expanded, for GA or otherwise. As far as sources go, Mark Lewisohn, Ian MacDonald, Nicholas Schaffner and Walter Everett have each written books that I think are indispensable for Beatles articles. Everett's two The Beatles as Musicians volumes are the only ones I don't own. Unless you're really keen, I'd say hold on to your dollars/pounds/euros etc – I'd be glad to help, and I know there's no shortage of other editors here who have some of those titles at their fingertips. Not sure what to suggest when it comes to good sources for '60s music in general, though.
 * Good luck with your noms. I see you've got the Music Machine currently under review by – you're in very safe hands from what I've seen, I've admired their contributions here too. By the way, I'm a subscriber to Rock's Backpages, which is a fantastic archive for contemporary music reviews, interviews and feature articles. Give me a shout if you see anything you like there (you too, Garage). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the complement. I know TheGracefulSlick very well, but I've never had a chance to speak to you.  I like your name, by the way--we both picked the same year ('66) to cap 'em off.  Good luck! Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "66" in your username caught my attention too! In mine, it's to acknowledge the finest year in music, imo: Revolver, Pet Sounds, Blonde on Blonde – and much more. JG66 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The best year there ever was (though '65, '67, and '68 were darn close). Gosh...going to the record store and seeing Revolver, Aftermath, and Blonde on Blonde sitting in the latest hit album display.  Then driving home in your Ponitiac 2-dr Catalina and turning on the AM radio (one great song after another) on the way home to practice with your band the Wylde Knights  who just recorded a song that ended up on the hit radio station while you were driving home with the shrink-wrapped Pet Sounds in your arms! Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, you obviously lived it – as a kid in the 1980s I just dreamed about it. (Respect, and a great deal of envy!) I agree about the whole 1965–68 period – all phenomenal, of course, but 1966 has always grabbed me. Reading about it now, I get the impression that enlightened types like Dylan, Lennon, Harrison, McGuinn, Crosby et al were so well-versed in the LSD experience by the end of 1965, and it comes out in their music over the following year. This contrasts with 1967, at which point the secret was out and LSD had become trendy. Perhaps I'm misinformed there to some degree, but I hear it in the music, the attitude, of '66: anything and everything was possible, whereas in '67 it already "was". JG66 (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I didn't get a chance to live it. I can only dream about it (and wish I was there).  But, you know we still have the music to cherish and love.  I like what you're saying a lot (thematically speaking) about how people were searching and how LSD was initially a new vehicle for exploration. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I misunderstood – your post-record store description was so darn vivid! JG66 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendations, I'll try to get my hands on those. Personally, I would have to say '67 is my favorite year in music because that was the year the Incredible String Band released 5000 Spirits or the Layers of the Onion, which I recommend especially to you since I can tell you are interested in world music. I've tried to be very flexible with my work on 60s music, but I hope to soon became fixated on one subject for a while, either the Stones or the Doors. Speaking of your work, I'm glad Harrison's articles get such a loving treatment, in my opinion Harrison was a genius and terribly overlooked during his tenure with the Beatles. Although it was sad the Beatles disbanded, it is fortunate for us because Harrison was able to unlock his true potential, which I feel would have been missed if the Beatles somehow held it together for a few more years.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, a couple of Harrison biographers draw parallels between his work and ISB, actually. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a listen.
 * And thanks again for the compliments, you're too kind. I tend to swap between thinking George was stifled unfairly in the Beatles, and realising he contributed plenty to the band but it's just that so many authors fixate on the Lennon–McCartney dominance. And it's not helped by McCartney pushing to be recognised as Lennon's artistic equal after the latter's death, because that comes at the expense of Harrison and Starr's roles in the Beatles. Either way, it's always good working on Harrison or Harrison/Beatles articles – you realise that, by and large, his work is valued, and there's always a lot of thought that goes into his stuff, which, I think, makes for a more interesting article. JG66 (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, Harrison didn't get his due amount of material pushed onto the group's albums, but he did indirectly affect how McCartney and Lennon composed songs. I always believed much of the songs' arrangements on Sgt. Pepper and Magical Mystery Tour, whether they were imagined by Lennon-McCartney or Harrison himself, were influenced by his introduction of Indian music and philosophy to the other Beatles. Another component of Harrison's work I always enjoyed is his lyrics because they are so introspective. That is another connection I found in the ISB's content, especially during their peak of popularity between 1967-1969, that I think you would appreciate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How many bands would kill to have a problem like that! In any other band, Harrison would have received a lot more recognition.  Ringo gets overlooked too. And then, there are Lennon and McCartney...(!)  So much talent in one band. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)