User talk:McTavidge

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Lukobe 08:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 9, January 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Stutch
Hey there, You need to warn the fellow first--try one of the series. After that, post on Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Hope that helps--lemme know if it's unclear-- Lukobe 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Insurance
Please post questions on the talk page. Adding comments disrupts the flow of the text to those editing. Thank you. -- Avi 06:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not insert parenthetical comments into wikipedia articles. If you have specific questions about the article, please use the talk page. Thank you. -- Avi 06:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

NAIC
Rather than reverting edits, you should put comments on the talk page. Wikipedia content should be verifiable. I tried to verify everything on the original NAIC definition from the NAIC website itself at the time I wrote it. If you disagree, or if you have an example of someone mistakenly calling the NAIC a regulator, that's another matter. I kept some of your other edits because I respect your right to contribute to the page and only deleted the part that lacks any foundation at all -- if you strongly disagree, let's take it to the NAIC talk page.


 * Thanks for the comments. Being new to Wikipedia is a common thing ;-)  The number of "rules" is really pretty small.  I think you should edit anything you want, as long as you're respectful and fully prepared to have your edits edited. Oblivy 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is now the Beatles
In case you are not watching the page, I have now formalised the policy to reflect the proper way of refering to the band. The announcement is here, and the wording is on the main page. Your help in applying this policy to the articles would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU 15:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't the foggiest how Wiki bots are created, but I should think parameters such as Unless after a (period.) or (quotation")... would be quite common. I was hoping that there was amongst those people I notified a bot operator or someone who knew a bot operator. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The beat-less 'article'
So, it's now the Beatles, is it? Every mention of The Band should be changed (in the middle of a sentence) to the Band. "At the gig, Bob Dylan and the Band.... which means his 'backing band', and not The Band. Explanation:


 * "I saw the Band tonight."
 * "Which band?"
 * "The Band!"


 * "I watched the beetles tonight."
 * In your kitchen again?"
 * No, The Beatles!

It's a question of emphasis... andreasegde 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Consensus, The Beatles and Project Policy
I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.

The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.

Belated reaction
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.

My Comments
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.

Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.

WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.

My Observations
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponents of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.

More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.

My Conclusion(s)
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.

I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Record label branding
Your question about simplification may be answered by Tor Books' explanation of imprints. It applies to the publishing industry, but is pretty much the same for record labels. —mjb 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Don't hold your breath"
It may be that us proponents of big T will not find an authority for us to use. However, as "lack of evidence is not evidence of lack" it is unlikely that that scenario would end the possibility of the debate being rekindled; what I'm saying is that the matter may just be left in abeyance. It may be that someone (possibly me) will one day make a comment that current policy is unlikely to be challenged in the near future, but that will depend on how long we are prepared to search should nothing turn up.

I am going to announce in the next Newsletter that little t is now policy, and request/require Project Members abide by it. I would comment that you haven't done anything really wrong in asking if us Big T'ters have found any grounds, as it was your prompting that got me to decide to announce the change of policy when I did. I may have waited longer for a response. It just seems that you might be a little over-anxious to conclude things; a perfectly reasonable wish but one which might not happen. The best thing is to keep an eye on the policy pages and subscribe to the Newsletter, if things don't appear to be developing then energies can be better spent on the articles.

If you do find people changing the t back to Big just revert them. I don't think you will find it will be any people you have recently debating with (we agree to disagree, but we will abide by policy) and if you need backup then please call on me or User:Lar (he is an Admin, which helps) as we are both very policy orientated.

Despite (or indeed because of) our debate I think you are the type of editor this project needs, knowledgable, civil, and enthusiastic. I hope you stick around. If us Big T'ters ever do find something to bring to the debate then I trust you will be there to put your side of the argument.

Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cites
OED (2d Edition, 1989) (From the defintion of "Beatle" (used as an adjective (attributive), as in, "I dig that Beatle haircut.") ''Applied attrib. to the hair-style or other characteristics of ‘The Beatles’ or of their imitators. Also, Beatlemania [-MANIA], addiction to the Beatles and their characteristics; the frenzied behaviour of their admirers. Hence other nonce-formations (see quots.). 1963 The Beatles 3 Their unique hair-styles have forced hair-dressers to follow the Beatle cutfor girls as well as boys. 1963 Daily Tel. 1 Nov. 15/6 Beatle fans hold up premier's car. 1963 Times 27 Dec. 4/6 The social phenomenon of Beatlemania, which finds expression in handbags, balloons and other articles bearing the likeness of the loved ones, or in the hysterical screaming of young girls whenever the Beatle Quartet performs in public. 1964 Daily Tel. 10 Feb. 1/3 Outside, hundreds of squealing Beatlemaniacs carried such signs as ‘We love younever leave us’. Ibid. 20 Feb. 22/7 The first export consignment of Beatle wallpaper will be flown from Manchester to Canada to-day. 1964 Daily Mail 11 Feb. 6/8, I hope someone explains to the Americans that we wear our Beatle wigs and bowlers on separate occasions. 1968 Courier-Mail (Brisbane) 22 June 3/3 Of the Beatles he [sc. Maharishi Yogi] said: ‘..They weren't prepared to end their beatledom for meditation.’''

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 00:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The the - yes folks, it's here again

 * Brian Epstein signed a contract with the Beatles. He signed it with their individual consent, and they signed it as individual members. Point? Plural, and not collective.
 * Paul and John went to Paris, meaning that the Beatles who went to Paris were only two, and not the whole group.
 * The Beatles, meaning the Beatles that toured America (not 1, 2, 3, of them, but 4 of them) were The Beatles, because it was singular, meaning a whole entity.
 * This is a way of raising the debate to a new level, which includes both sides of the argument. andreasegde 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

News Time

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

BetacommandBot 23:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject The Beatles
Your user name is on the “Inactive, or have just popped out for a cup of tea...” list on the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles page. You can move it back to the “Participants” list if you feel this is not the case. :) -- WikiProject The Beatles 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

incorrect capitalisation is not a minor problem
Please take a look at Talk:The_Beatles Thanks, Espoo (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is comprised of
I've responded to your question on this topic at []. Tim Ross  (talk)  18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict personal attacks to the talk page of the articles
Dear Sir or Madam, If you wish to childishly insult someone, I suggest you do so on the talk page of the article in question, rather than on the person's own talk page. Sincerely, NJSustainNjsustain (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Beatles RfC
Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band " THE BEATLES " mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)