User talk:MusicforthePeople/Talk archive/2012

Messages for 2012 messages. Most of the time I'll message you on your talk. In less than a handful of cases, I will reply here. Due to a slight work(over)load (on Wiki, and irl), I may not instantly reply.

Editing Problems
The single was released the day after Premium members of Paul's site got to listen to "My Valentine". Tuesday December 20, 2011..It was released to the public that day...and sources before the announcing of "Kisses on the Bottom" said that Paul is planning a rock/pop album for late 2012 so why are you erasing all my work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75getback (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Its all over the internet though. He released the song to the public the following day...and I do have a source for his other album coming out

http://beatlesinternational.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=322:two-new-mccartney-albums-coming-up&catid=2:news&Itemid=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75getback (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

how do I source it? and how are you sending me your message back as a reply to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75getback (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The single is set for an official release January 10. It was given to a few people for promotional use only on January 3. http://www.amazon.com/Wings/dp/B006MQDYX6/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1325692408&sr=1-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75getback (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

All My Loving
You may want to contribute to a discussion on this article's talk page - your views, either way, would be appreciated. Many thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ringo 2012
It's actually 17 studio albums. "I want to be Santa Claus" counts as a studio album — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75getback (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Starr Struck: Best of Ringo Starr, Vol. 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hey Baby (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) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Sue Me, Sue You Blues" (x 2)
Hi Yeepsi. Yeah, what a coincidence − and less than a day apart! As you noticed, I've added a talk on the other contributor's page, and will probably add something on both SMSYB article pages. Out of interest, instead of adding the word "(song)" to the title to create a song article, how do you go about creating a new article when the song is already automatically being redirected to an album, d'you know? (I mean, how do you get the song title appearing in red when you search, but without going through Article Wizard and then putting the piece forward to ArticlesForCreation, which I've found can take forever.) Cheers JG66 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

re All Things Must Pass
Hello JG66, I've seen the album artwork section for ATMP, and I have a ref which might be of some help: http://www.allthingsmustpass.com/album/index.html (It's flash, so you'll need to click on the "A"). yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yeepsi. Yeah, thanks for this. I'm thinking of adding some detail about 2001 artwork and GH's 'green' message under the 2001 Reissue section of the article, so it'll come in useful ... Bye for now, JG66 (talk) 08:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Lord Loves the One ... [not: The Lord Loves The One ...]
Hi Yeepsi. I put the following query to HelpDesk but reply didn't really solve the issue (or I just can't work it out). Can you help maybe?

I recently submitted an article on the George Harrison song "The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)" − here. Problem is, the two definite articles (forgetting title's first word) are capitalised on the page, yet in track listing for the Living in the Material World album, these words are lower case (the) − which means the link from the album page doesn't work, of course. I tried changing the 'DEFAULT' tag in the article to show 'the's instead of 'The's, but that doesn't seem to have worked. Would welcome some advice on this, because there are other articles that link to this song as well. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again Yeepsi. Thanks for your reply − yes, you're right, some kind soul fixed it up. All good! JG66 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23
Hi. When you recently edited Record Store Day, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Another Day (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) 11:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Living in the Material World lead-in request
Hi there Yeepsi. Bit intrigued by the tag added to this article. I followed the link to the relevant info page, but I can't really see how those points apply. Want to make sure article's as best as it can be obviously, and I respect your opinion − but it does seem a fairly general lead-in that touches on issues explored in detail in the main text. What were you thinking was the issue, can I ask? Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I'm always a bit reluctant to state too much up-front in the articles and risk obvious repetition, but I'll have a look at it. {Put it this way, anything to avoid that yellowy-orange banner at the start of the piece!) Hey, congratulations on that Barn star above − top 5% ... JG66 (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks so much for the compliment about the Beatle George articles. (I guess I'd spent years looking at wiki's post-Beatles album articles and going, Groan − that's not right ...) Anyway, that 'top 5%' Barn Star − I believed it, you seem to get everywhere at the same time(!). Bit like Klaus, Keltner & co. − somehow able to be in London, New York and LA on the same day almost ... JG66 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Beatles infobox
There is a Straw Poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Once Upon a Long Ago (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kansas City (song)


 * Tug of War (song) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Take It Away

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Califonia IP vandal
He pops up from time to time; he was editing from a university IP, but has either finished school or is on holiday and is now in another part of the state. If you see him again (he also vandalises Moody Blues articles), just drop a note at User talk:Daniel Case; he's an admin and is familiar with this already. Cheers.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  00:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That's Why God Made the Radio (The Beach Boys song)
Please do not revert any postings without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary as you did with That's Why God Made the Radio (The Beach Boys song). Please review the source linking information about this song that jeopardizes your latest revert, making it an unjustified revert. Please read the 4th paragraph of said source, clearly stating "Jim previously worked with Hungate in Nashville on a song written with producer Joe Thomas and Ides bandmate Larry Millas. The song "That's Why God Made Radio" was coincidentally the first song Joe ever sang with Jim Peterik." If you have any further questions or concerns, please tag my talk page Gsgeek540 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

He did the same with The Beatles in film page, Taking away the documentary "Rare and Unseen: The Beatles" which is in fact a documentary about The Beatles so it belongs there.

re New page(s)
[Hello JG. I'm wondering, what page(s) will you be creating next? So I may get the links at the ready. yeepsi (Time for a chat?/OVAR 9000!) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)]


 * Hi Yeepsi. Sorry, been flat out on The Concert for Bangladesh article. (Those individual page refs are so fiddly ...) As I've added on the Talk page there, I've got plans for the Concert for BD album article, which seems a little underwhelming right now. As far as other pages I'm working on, I keep thinking about reworking "Living in the Material World (song)", "Awaiting on You All" and "Wah-Wah (song)", maybe a few more. But you're asking about new pages, I think. I've sort of had a few on the back burner, for weeks now: "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" with a section covering "Simply Shady", both songs written by GH in India, a sort of ying/yang of his spiritual vs domestic struggles in early '74; "Run of the Mill", almost criminal that there's no piece on that song yet; "Art of Dying" same, especially as the lyrics are so often quoted since George died in 2001; "The Answer's at the End" maybe. Another one I've been meaning to do for ages is Splinter's The Place I Love. But the major opus (in fact probably the reason I started contributing to wiki) is an article on the George−Ravi tour of '74 − but it's a tough one! Anyway, that's the general plan, although I'm going to be busy elsewhere for a while.


 * By the way, I was really pleased to see you'd reassessed Ding Dong and Give Me Love, now both B on the quality scale. (Fab!) Not sure if you've noticed but I've since revisited and added to The Best of George Harrison, "So Sad" and "Dark Horse (song)" − maybe worth a reassessment on those, I don't know(?). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd added a "huge" amount to the Concert for BD article − hopefully the level of improvement matches the increase in article length(!). Thanks so much for your comments on LITMW and Dark Horse. (The latter's such an interesting album, and the more you look at George's activities from late '73 onwards, the more it seems obvious it was all going to end in tears come November and the US tour. Still have some more to add to LITMW, though: definitely needs a brief discussion on his slide guitar work, and I think more's needed under Reception.) Anyway ... thanks again − nomination for GA, wow! JG66 (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, happy to help if as you say "problems arise". My only reservation is, just from looking at a few GA articles in the past, they never seem to read that well − what I mean is, the wording seems a bit stilted, in my opinion. Almost as if all trace of personality gets removed with the GA review process (mind you, maybe there wasn't any to start with, who knows). So I'm thinking that ultra-dry style could be what's required of a wiki GA − which would be a shame, because discussion of music invites some enthusiasm for the subject surely. Anyway, I'm probably jumping the gun, let's see how it goes. It would be great to have a few more GH-related GAs.
 * The George & Ravi tour, by the way, I think officially it's: George Harrison–Ravi Shankar 1974 North American Tour. Often referred to as the Dark Horse tour. As for your question "In the early-to-mid 70s ... who liked Ringo back in them days?" − hey, Ring did mighty well from 1971 thru to about '75 (with more than a little help from his friends, of course). That's commercially speaking − three 'gold' singles from '71 to '73, two of which were co-written by George of course. But also, the critics loved him, so he was never going to be subjected to the sort of scrutiny the others were. Anyway, back to it ... JG66 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Yeepsi. Just finished work on The Concert for Bangladesh article, if you felt up for a reassess (i.e. it's long!) Still, I'm quite pleased with it, and knowing the article's now had a bit of a radical overhaul, I've put plenty of explanation on the Talk page. Hey, and thanks for putting LITMW up for a GA ... really excited about that, didn't mean to sound negative in my earlier comments about GA articles. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Living in the Material World
After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put this article on hold at this time for good article status. To see the issues that need to be addressed, please click here. I will give you the general seven days to address these issues and/or address issues you believe do not affect good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Rp0211 ( talk2me ) 23:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again Yeepsi (further to message below regarding Dark Horse GA nomination). As mentioned, I think some (most) of RP0211's requirements for LITMW are unnecessary, pedantic even. The constant requirement for a date at almost each and every mention of another album, the instructions to write out all abbreviated years in full and the requested removal of brackets/parenthesis all seem to have been applied without any feel for the flow of the text − just as bland, standard requirements. (This was what I referred to a while back, that upgrading an article to GA statues might simply suck the life out of it.) What makes these issues even more unnecessary is seeing that the Dark Horse assessor, GreatOrangePumpkin, has had no objection to years being abbreviated, appears to recognise that some points merit parenthesis (as an aside from the main discussion), and doesn't feel the need to see years of release accompanying other works referred to in the piece, such as Living in the Material World, Shankar Family & Friends, Little Malcolm, Ram and Sgt Pepper's. GreatOrangePumpkin adds a comment, I notice, referring to the piece as an "interesting article" − I think that shows he/she has got into the discussion (while still applying strict GA requirements) rather than looking to impose a load of hard-and-fast rules for the sake of it. I mean, aside from that point I've made below in LITMW about release dates being required after "April and May 1973" (in other words, four mentions of 1973 in the one sentence), does "(1970)" really need to accompany All Things Must Pass twice in the Reception section? I can't see that it needs to be added at all: the year of release has already been given at start of article for ATMP and later on in the phrase "In another contrast with his 1970 triple set ...", just as Concert for Bangladesh receives "The Bangladesh experience of 1971–72 ..." − what I'm saying is, the information has already been given naturally, in keeping with the flow of the discussion, so why clutter the sentences, and insult readers' intelligence, each time? I'm sure some of RP0211's points are valid, but my feeling is to let this 7-day window slide for LITMW, undo many of those unnecessary changes, and then re-submit with a request that GreatOrangePumpkin assess? What do you think, is that possible? JG66 (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yeepsi, thanks for your reply. For LITMW, I think let the 7 days elapse, yeah. Of course it would be nice to see the article rated as as GA, but not at the expense of the content − readers aren't going to know or care whether it's a Good Article or not, hopefully they'll just enjoy the piece and think it's a good article (if you get my drift). I've looked through both wiki's MoS and the WP Albums style guide, and I can't see any requirement that years should be added in parenthesis each time, that a year should not be abbreviated or even that a full stop/point is needed after quoted text that ends with an ellipsis. So there are those pedantic points of style that Rp0211 wants to impose and which seem out of keeping with an album article - that's point one. The other thing is the instructions that are just plain wrong: the instruction under Background to 'Put more commas and less of the word "and"' in that list of GH's spiritual songs would be incorrect, for instance, because only the first two songs were 'Prabhupada-inspired', so an 'and' is needed to make the distinction. Also, the mention of "So Sad", shortly below that, really does belong in parenthesis because the track's not on this album, and the discussion at this point is about GH's then-current songs that he would go on to record for LITMW. Also, why shouldn't the Apple catalogue numbers appear in the article's Release section? (They mean something to record collectors, those cat. numbers.) It's issues like those that make me think Rp0211's not really connected with the piece, so I'd be loath to go ahead and follow the instructions. Some of the points raised are valid, of course, and much appreciated. Background's 'he chanted the Hare Krishna mantra nonstop for days' does need verifying, quite right, and I'll do that; same with Reception's 'More sombre in tone, Living in the Material World was distinguished by Harrison's philosophical and religious ruminations ...', which was a paragraph that was there originally, before I ever contributed to the article (and which needs rewording, I guess, into something that I can support with refs). So no problem with instructions such as those, because any assessor would point them out, I'm sure. As far as requesting a specific reviewer goes − you're right, and I'm sure it's hardly a regular wiki practice. I don't mind giving it a go, but then I don't know how that would look, me being a major contributor to the article. I suggest let's see how the Dark Horse nom progresses, and then go for take 2 on LITMW − what do you think? PS: did you feel like reassessing that Concert for Bangladesh article? I was hoping it might be worth more than a C by now(!). Fab job by the way, Yeepsi, on putting the two articles forward for GA nom − I hope I haven't made things difficult for you with LITMW. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the seven days to fix the issues mentioned has passed, I have to fail the article for good article nomination at this time. There are too many outstanding issues for this article to pass; when these issues are addressed, however, you are more than welcome to renominate the article. Also, after looking at the comments above by one of your peers, I must mention that I am welcome to hear others' inputs on a good article nomination, and if anybody believes something is stated that does not concern the good article criteria, they are more than welcome to discuss the issue on the respective nomination page.  Rp0211  ( talk2me ) 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dark Horse (George Harrison album)
The article Dark Horse (George Harrison album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dark Horse (George Harrison album) for things which need to be addressed. GoP T C N 05:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yeepsi. Thanks so much for your work in nominating this article. You'll see I've gone through it and fixed a few of the issues (I'm not sure whether I should be posting this message on the GA nom page, or not?). You said in your message that you'd not yet addressed any of the Dark Horse article issues, but it looks like you have (which is great); as far I can see, there's only the Silver UK sales status, which I know nothing about (delete it then, I'd say). I haven't altered the references style, as it only appears to be a suggestion rather than a requirement, but it's something I'm happy to attend to down the line (I'd be going with a Notes section for the abbreviated citations, and then the full details under References). One thing to point out: "Ring out the old, ring in the new" was italicised because it's quoting from the song lyrics, which are ital throughout the article. I really appreciate GreatOrangePumpkin's comments and approach – but less so RP0211's on LITMW, much of which seems picky and unnecessary (I mean, "April and May 1973" have been set aside for other Apple album releases, but RP0211 thinks a year then needs adding for each of those albums ... More on LITMW later.) Anyway, thanks again, Yeepsi − I had no idea in fact that you'd put Dark Horse up for GA nomination as well. Hopefully now it's ready to go(?). Please let me know if I should post this message on the GA nom talk pages also. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dark Horse (George Harrison album) - Passed
The article Dark Horse (George Harrison album) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dark Horse (George Harrison album) for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP T C N 09:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Back in the World tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackbird (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) 15:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

re Noms
Hey Yeepsi. Yeah, I'd put a request on The Concert for BD talk page about wanting to de-italicise article title and mentioned the need for a reassessment, so it seems another contrib went and did both. Excellent. But that would be great if you could take a look at the two new articles; also, I've revisited "Isn't It a Pity" in the hope that might be worthy of a B. (More I think about it, those important GH songs like "Pity", "Bangla Desh", "Sue Me" and "Dark Horse" really deserve B articles, so I'm hoping to spend a bit of time on improving them. Maybe "Pity"'s there now, I don't know ...) Yes, LITMW on hold for a while, I think. There are those two unreferenced sentences in Reception that need looking at, and I'd always planned to add more to that section anyway. I'd like to think The Concert for Bangladesh is ready to roll. PS: I keep looking at the Dark Horse talk page − GA!! Wowee! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi again Yeepsi. Thanks for looking at those articles − great to see "Isn't It a Pity" up to a B now. With The Concert for BD, yes I was thinking GA nom time, but perhaps best to wait a day or two − because I added so much there, it might save time if I looked through the whole piece and pre-empted a few requests that a GA reviewer might have. (As with LITMW, it's the odd unsupported sentence left in from before that I'd be a bit worried about maybe.) I'm starting to think Extra Texture might be GA nom-able, what do you think? Maybe I'm getting a bit ahead of myself, but I remember thinking that article covered a lot and came together so easily ... JG66 (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hiya Yeepsi. You'll see I've been adding a bit to Ex Tex − like you, trying to avoid obvious points a GA reviewer might pick up. Happened to look [|here] and notice that neither The Concert for Bangladesh nor "Isn't It a Pity" were included as Bs, even though their talk pages acknowledge they've graduated. Nothing amiss there, do you know? PS. I'm hoping to get down to preparing CforBD article for GA over next few days. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, no need to apologise about ExTex − absolutely no problem. Thanks for the scoop on those assessment tables, by the way. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note
I just wanted to let you know that there is a discussion here to which you may be interested in contributing. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk 02:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

File:You us.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:You us.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

LITMW nom
Hi Yeepsi. Got rather depressed looking at the progress (hardly) in a recent Beatles straw poll so I decided to do something I actually like doing instead, and have gone ahead and put Living in the Material World up for GA nomination again. At least, I think I have ... not entirely sure I copied the GAN text into the right place on the Talk page. Would be great if you could check for me. PS I hope you don't mind me jumping in and renominating it myself (or trying to)? (Like I say, just wanted the distraction really.) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha – "popcorn and watching the polls"! Love it. Thanks for your help on that, think I've got it right now. JG66 (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Extra Texture (Read All About It)
The article Extra Texture (Read All About It) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 2 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Extra Texture (Read All About It) for things which need to be addressed. GoP T C N 18:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Extra Texture (Read All About It) - Passed
The article Extra Texture (Read All About It) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Extra Texture (Read All About It) for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? GoP T C N 10:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi yeepsi. Fabulous! With a bit of luck, GreatOrangePumpkin might get a chance to look at LITMW now as well. I sent him a message when you put ExTex up for nom, explaining that I thought he'd done a great job with the Dark Horse nom, could he take a look at some other Harrison article GA noms, etc ... Would be great to get LITMW, Concert for BD and CforBD album all as GAs − I'm getting greedy now, aren't I? Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... after LITMW and both CforBD articles become GA' − I like your confidence! Well, to my way of thinking, "My Sweet Lord" is ripe for a GA, with not too much work needed. All Things Must Pass is the obvious one, isn't it? I've been adding bits and pieces over the last few months but it still needs a lot of work, and so much is missing, it's incredible. Plus, seeing as there appears to have been some controversy in the article's history, I've always been a bit reluctant to take it on. (That's why I put loads of comment on CforBD's talk page, hoping to fend off any possible problems on such a multi-project article.) There's still loads of song articles to get up to a B, Bangla Desh, Dark Horse, in particular. I've been trying to push the LITMW songs up a notch recently, and This Guitar is another I've developed quite a bit − I'd say that's worth a B by now. (On that point, I was a bit disappointed with the Cs for Run of the Mill and Frankie Crisp, I really thought they might be Bs, especially Crisp − I figured that was the best song article I'd ever done actually! No worries, but I might get a second opinion if you don't mind. There's another contributor who looked at one of the CforBD articles − I might ask them to take a look. I told you: I'm getting greedy nowadays!) New articles: still with my LITMW hat on, I'm planning to complete the track list(!), with pieces for both That Is All and Who Can See It; Hear Me Lord and maybe Let It Down from ATMP; His Name Is Legs (oddly enough) from ExTex − Allmusic dedicates a review to the song and with the Bonzo connection there's a lot of scope to introduce discussion of GH's comedy/movie pals who entered the scene around this time. Will be going for separate articles for Behind That Locked Door, Deep Blue, Miss O'Dell after all (rather than leaving as sections within other song articles), and there are a few ATMP song articles I've been meaning to rework − it's just so much harder, I find, when another contributor has written loads already but it all requires reworking (Wah-Wah, Awaiting on You All and Living in the Material World (song) come to mind); much easier to start from scratch almost ... Phew. I've done it again, haven't I? You ask me a short, concise question and I reply with half a page's worth! Hey, fantastic about the GA for ExTex. I must just go and check out the talk page again ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Yeepsi. LITMW scored a clean bill of health − and a GA. Fab, eh? (Just take a look at that handsome green GA symbol!) Here's what's missing from ATMP, I reckon:


 * pre-production period covered in Chris O'Dell's book, describing the moment George decides to do his first solo album (yes, of course it's his first one!), John Barham stays at Friar Park running through orchestrations before sessions begin, Spector hears all the songs at FP also and is blown away by them;
 * great radio interview George does in New York, talking about end of The Beatles and starting the album;
 * Spector's unreliability/drunkenness once sessions are under way, absenting himself and leaving George to do most of the work (plenty of comments from Klaus Voormann, John Barham and Badfinger's Joey Molland about that);
 * production interrupted when George's mum dies in July, delaying album release by months;
 * once back in LA, Spector sends George detailed feedback on early mixes with specific advice on each track;
 * Clapton and Pattie behind the scenes during album's production, EC withdrawing into heroin addiction by end of the year;
 * Camouflague designers Tom Wilkes and Barry Feinstein work up very innovative design concept for this, the first box set album in rock/pop, much of which wasn't used in the packaging (eg an crazy-looking Krishna poster incorporating a picture that was used instead for the What Is Life pic sleeve);
 * details needed about 2001 reissue artwork, quite radical changes (hey, what happened to the 2001 alternative cover? It's gone!);
 * musician credits need looking at − no point just repeating what's in 2001 reissue booklet when various sources have offered new info (no one's got ATMP credits right yet!);
 * track listing definitely needs looking at, because originally GH was credited with writing all of disc three (Apple Jam); it was only in 2001, I believe, that the musicians were all credited, but I think the "It's Johnny's Birthday" writers were probably credited before then.
 * I bet you're glad you asked what was missing(!). So that's why I keep putting the article on the back burner, knowing it'll probably need a major overhaul. Good to hear you're so pro-vinyl; I'm afraid I had to succumb to those small, tinny discs ages back ... Good thing about going digital, though, is you can program tracks in whatever order you want. For instance, my iTunes Dark Horse starts with Ding Dong; moving Hari's on Tour right to the end. PS: You're brave listening to Ex Tex − I find that one really hard going. Okay, back to Who Can See It ... JG66 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Yeepsi. Wow, that was a long message! I've only got a few minutes, so I won't pretend to reply to every point ... The George-John convo, yes I think I know it − Yoko's there too apparently. If it's the one I'm thinking of, it's quoted in one of Bruce Spizer's Apple Records books, and I added mention of it in "All Things Must Pass". I'll probably mention it again in a "Hear Me Lord" song article. Could be useful early on in ATMP article, I don't know; I think the Chris O'Dell scene is probably more useful (she's living there at Friar Park when Beatles split and provides picture of George coming around to the idea of doing an album). With Apple Jam: Yes, you're right all those musicians were credited/listed, but not named as songwriters − isn't that right? I've collected a few Beatles books from the '70s, which are just great, and one called All Together Now (which I always use for dates, catalogue numbers etc) lists "George Harrison" beside each and every song name (apart from when Dylan's name appears of course) across the six LP sides. Other books talk about Harrison presenting, seemingly out of nowhere, 20+ compositions of his own to the public on this album − which contributed to the "OMG! Where the ... did all this come from?" vibe that accompanied the release. I added an NME reviewer rating to the ATMP article recently; you have to be a subscriber to Rock's Back Pages to access the actual review (and it costs a fortune), but here's some relevant text, from December 1970: "The final record of the three is a jam session for George and friends − mainly a continuing riff worked upon, and going on and on; or the fun of a little piece called 'IT'S JOHNNY'S BIRTHDAY'. I was surprised, incidentally, to see Harrison credited as composer of this one. It may well be that Bill Martin and Phil Coulter, who wrote 'Congratulations', will have other thoughts!" So, to my way of thinking, the 2001 reissue was the first time George ever shared the songwriting on that disc. Also, this from Keith Badman's Beatles Diary Vol. 2, under '26 May 1970 (until early November)': "At one point during the recordings, the musicians break into a brief version of Cliff Richard's 'Congratulations', thus earning a royalty claim by its songwriters Bill Martin and Phil Coulter." (As in a claim after the release, is the way I understand it.) I'm convinced about this − just wish I had a Mojo or something similar from early 2001, cos I think that would confirm it beyond any doubt. Anyway, that's just one of the issues with the ATMP article that keeps making me shy away from working on it! I'll start it sometime, I'm sure .. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks/Youtube bug
Hi, Recently you used Reflinks to clean up some refs on Atom Heart Mother (suite). Unfortunately, there's a bug in Reflinks which creates spurious author names for Youtube pages. It's discussed here. I doubt the bug can be fixed soon; so in the meantime it might be a good idea to keep an eye out for this, and maybe put in the right author names by hand..? bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles Mediation
FYI, I have added your name to the list of involved users at the Beatles Mediation. I hope you will agree to the mediation. ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation
Please send a Wikipedia e-mail to User:Feezo, or User:Mr. Stradivarius to confirm that you are indeed part of the mediation. The link can be found here.--andreasegde (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 23:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Syd Barrett - Passed
The article Syd Barrett you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Syd Barrett for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Concert for Bangladesh GAN
Hi there Yeepsi. After our discussions on what needed doing on ATMP, you'll notice I went ahead and put Concert for BD (album) up for GA nom − to get that one out the way before starting work on the 1970 big opus. In GoP's review, the only issue is the cover images. I'm wondering if you can help: my new mouse won't let me right-click and save images as jpg, can sort this out easy enough but there's only 1 day to fix the image issue (or GAN will fail!) Any chance you could upload a smaller 1971/72 cover image for me? Found one here (halfway down the page), or maybe you've got a better site in mind − as long as the image is quite small. Hope you can help. PS: Thanks for the B on "This Guitar"! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for that, Yeepsi. Lifesaver. Only problem is the jpg is titled exactly the same as the old one so it seems impossible to replace with the image you've just uploaded. (Or is this a case of me being stupid maybe?!) JG66 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yeepsi. Just wanted to say congrats on the Syd Barrett GA, and thank you again for sorting out the Concert for BD cover image. I actually think the lower-res version is truer to the original cover. (Everything looked smoky in the early '70s, so I gather!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles mediation
Hi Yeepsi, could you please expand on your view of the mid-sentence compromise? The purpose is to critically evaluate the arguments of both positions, so "support per X" doesn't really give us a lot to work with. Thanks &mdash; Feezo (send a signal &#124; watch the sky) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Madcap
Hi Yeepsi. I took a look at The Madcap Laughs and ended up making substantial changes to the article (I'm not sure if that's what you were expecting or not?). As comments in the edit history show, there was a huge amount of repetition early in the article, particularly the point about Barrett leaving Pink Floyd and hooking up with manager Peter Jenner; not only that, but the prose was in a pretty poor state throughout. You'll see I've ended up restructuring the article slightly as well, which seemed necessary once the repetition had been removed. For instance, there is now no Background section at all (because what little was provided before is actually more relevant to Recording) − but there really does need to be a Background section, I'd say. Loads of questions came to my mind as I read the article:


 * Why did Barrett leave Floyd? (eg, was it his decision? if not, did he remain on good terms with them all? what sort of a role did he have in the band − major songwriter?)


 * Was he the only musician during the Jenner sessions? (any other players? apparently not, although it's not made clear either way)


 * What was the mental problem that appears to be alluded to late in the Jenner sessions? (was he diagnosed with a particular illness? did this have some bearing on him leaving Pink Floyd?)


 * What are the songs on this album about? (a departure from his earlier work or not?)

All these issues aren't explored at all − and I was pretty stunned to see you'd put it up for GA nom already, to be honest. It needs a lot more research, in my opinion. Sorry, but I'd be surprised if it was even worth a B right now; it's a C with way, way too much detail on recording history (and I'm someone who loves to read about recording history, especially in London studios in late '60s/early '70s), yet nothing on context/background, song content, professional reviews/reception.

Another thing I wondered about: Hipgnosis and a photographer (but not Mick Rock) are listed under personnel − might be an idea to add mention of these two under Cover Art; they're credits for the reissue artwork, not the original, would that be right? Also, just want to make sure I haven't misunderstood things with the changes I've made:


 * Under Malcolm Jones sessions, you had Barrett "performed" other songs for Jones during the meeting in Earls Court; I added "on guitar" − hope that's okay?


 * You had mention of Soft Machine members and the Humble Pie drummer early on in the same section. I've removed that mention so that these musicians are introduced only when the relevant sessions are discussed, towards the end of Jones' involvement on the project. Again, hope that's correct − the mention of Shirley and Wilson attending the 17 April session certainly made it sound as if the presence of outside musicians was a first.


 * It wasn't clear what exactly Jones was "shocked" by when the album appeared (the quote: "I felt angry. It's like dirty linen in public and very unnecessary and unkind ..."). The quote has now been moved to sit in the Release section, and I've assumed Jones was referring to the rushed nature of the Gilmour−Waters sessions and the lack of disciplined musicianship referred to ("Syd would not allow the musicians to rehearse or re-record their overdubs, insisting that they sounded fine.")


 * Not sure why the very last ref contains text in bold. Tried to undo it, but gave up.

Anyway, I hope this all helps rather than discouraging you. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Yeepsi. I was just taking a look at Madcap again and I notice that early in the article the wording is uncomfortably close to text discussing the same period in the Syd Barrett article. I'd made mention of this issue in Madcap's edit history not so long ago, but hadn't realised the problem extended to the subsection in Barrett where Madcap is discussed (I'd only noticed the similarities between paragraphs in "Barrett's departure" and the Background section you added to Madcap). Like I say, to my way of thinking, the similarities are too obvious, and I'm a bit surprised Ritchie333 didn't spot this, since he GA-ed Syd Barrett also. I don't want to scupper your chances to take Madcap to GA quality − far from it, you're a wiki friend and I would like to help − but if I were a Barrett fan and read the Syd Barrett article, then followed the link to this album page (only to find much of the same wording there), I'd feel pretty cheated, you know? It's not just in the early part of the article either: you've got exactly the same quotes from Gilmour, Jenner and Waters discussing the finished album on both pages; and even more obviously, Syd's "It's quite nice but ... I don't think it would stand as my last statement" is given the same pull-out-quote treatment in both articles. Come on yeepsi, these articles have to be worth a GA rating! (And I've just been knocked back big-time on The Best of George Harrison, so − mouth full of suitably humble pie − please don't think I consider myself beyond raproach!) Perhaps it's a case of trimming down the relevant parts in the Syd Barrett article so that Madcap actually feels like it's taking a general discussion into more specific territory on the topics that overlap; but even then, some careful rephrasing would be needed in Madcap to avoid the album article mirroring what's in Barrett, and vice versa. (I've found myself having to do the same thing when writing a new song article, since often the relevant album page has discussed the song in some detail, yet the detail in that discussion is now superseded by the song being given individual attention. Content aside, though, it's the actual wording that's important − whether someone thinks they've just read it elsewhere.) I hope you're up for it − in the interests of wikipedia quality 'n all. If I've got time I'll take a look in a couple of rock encyclopaedias I've got, to come up with something more general for the Barrett page, but it might be an idea to take this up with Ritchie333 since he seems quite a Floyd fan? Hope this helps, Yeepsi. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi JG66. I saw some of the earlier work you did on The Madcap Laughs and I'd like to thank you for that. Basically, when GA reviewing, I assess it based on the the GA criteria - nothing more, nothing less. I assumed the opposite to you - a person going to a GA article should be able to find out everything important about that record without having to jump to another article, and I felt a brief summary of the circumstances of Syd's departure from the Floyd not only explains why and how he left, but also indicates to the reader what mental state he was in and why the rest of the recordings progressed the way they did. As an ancillary point, it also informs the reader that Syd went into the sessions with a fairly clean slate of material, or at least as best can be cited. From a cursory look, Syd Barrett has about double the content over this period as The Madcap Laughs. In summary, I felt the article covered the GA criteria correctly - the prose is understandable, it follows the key areas of the MOS, everything is referenced, sufficient citations were given, original research was ferreted out, it covers the area of Syd's life leading up to the release of Madcap but no more, I asked Yeespi to take out several contentious or non NPOV parts, there were no edit wars, and the article had properly captioned images. In short, a pass.
 * Incidentally, Syd Barrett was co-reviewed by several people, so it actually got looked over by no less than three people, from what I recall.
 * I hope that addresses your concerns - if not, do let me know. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just one more point, incidentally, if you are genuinely concerned about the GA review and want an honest second opinion, there are GA mentors available, such as, who is an experienced GA reviewer whose opinion is worth listening to. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   16:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi yeepsi and Ritchie333 (sorry Y, to be using your talk page for cross discussion!). Congrats on the GA. Ritchie333, I don't think you and I assumed any differently on how an article should stand alone and give readers everything that's notable on an article topic − I quite agree with you, readers need to be able to find everything that's relevant on the one page. My point was about the particular wording − that feeling, Hang on, I've just read this on another page. As mentioned previously, it's just a case of paraphrasing in the wider-picture Barrett article (if you agree it is a problem), now that significant attention has been given to the album article. I'm sure you guys will sort it out, and I hope my comments didn't offend. Found myself in a quandary: add a comment to the GA talk, contact the reviewer, or harangue the nominator. (And I need your help on something soon, yeepsi!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ummagumma and Schaffner
I notice this album, unlike several of the Floyd's, hasn't been GA nominated yet, and I've started making steps towards doing so. The first thing I want to do is get hold of a copy of Nicholas Schaffner's "A Saucerful Of Secrets" book, which does actually go into the background of making the album to more depth than just about anything else I've seen (most other coverage seems to just be the band dismissing it as a waste of time). I used to have a copy years ago, so I can remember certain quotes from it, but my copy disintegrated (I think it had an accident with a glass of wine) and got thrown out. Have you got a copy? -- Ritchie333  (talk)  14:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a copy. It's good reading -- go ahead and buy yourself a replacement. Better entertainment value than listening to "The Grand Vizier's Garden Party".
 * Summary: Ummagumma arose because Rick felt he had some "serious" music inside him, but in retrospect, would dismiss his "Sysyphus" as "pretentious". Only Gilmour and Waters attempted to write lyrical songs. Gilmour admits he "just bullshitted" his way through "The Narrow Way", lyrically -- even asking Roger to help him, but Roger insisted he write them himself (a brilliant tactical move, forcing everyone else to realize they weren't good lyricists.) Gilmour undermixed his lead vocals out of embarassment over the lyrics (it's funny, but I was just earlier today talking about how they did that very same thing for "Ibiza Bar"). Schaffner says nothing about Nick Mason's electronically-treated drum solo. "Ummagumma" was a slang term for copulation, and had nothing to do with Frank Herbert's Dune books. The live half of the album got Pink Floyd their earliest regular airplay in the U.S.
 * That's about it for Schaffner and Ummagumma.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediation
The mediators have come up with a new idea, which seems good. It's under "Episode IV: A New Poll", and "Your thoughts".--andreasegde (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for telling me. Love the title of the heading. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at this proposal and make a comment? I know it doesn't allow for arguments for/against, but it is as "simple as possible". Ta, --andreasegde (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pink Floyd bootleg recordings for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pink Floyd bootleg recordings 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/Pink Floyd bootleg recordings 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 template from the top of the article.-- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   23:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Madcap Laughs - Passed
The article The Madcap Laughs you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Madcap Laughs for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All Things Must Pass
Hi Yeepsi. I've gone ahead and started a discussion on proposed changes to All Things Must Pass − please jump in and add any input you might have. I seem to remember you saying you had the original LP on vinyl. UK edition perhaps? Would be great to know how the Apple Jam songwriting credits read on the actual records ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited Pink Floyd bootleg recordings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Us and Them (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) 05:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Long Wave
Hi, my updated info on this Jeff Lynne album comes from a reputable source! Robert Porter who is 'on the ball' with Jeff/ELO info http://www.jefflynnesongs.com/. remember amazon is only a guide. Its much more likely the song So Sad would be the Everly Brothers version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Equaliser (talk • contribs) 13:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Image for Mothers, Birmingham
Just a quick note, I've been trying to find a free image of what was the Mothers Club, Birmingham (where some of Ummagumma was recorded) - frustratingly there are two free images here and here of High Street, Erdington, that are either side of where the club was, with it just being out of shot on both, while this photo, being taken from a distance, does have the right hand side of the club just in shot. Any suggestions as to what to do? -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   11:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD : Brit Floyd : The Pink Floyd Tribute Show
This AfD has recently grabbed my attention, in case you're interested : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brit Floyd: The Pink Floyd Tribute Show -- Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   21:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bangla desh sweden.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Bangla desh sweden.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

the trade mark excuse is false you know that
Stop your lying about trade marks

LAUREN LEE GAUCK, v. HOOMAN KARAMIAN et al, p. 10 (“... The TPRPA “does not prohibit all unauthorized uses of another's name or likeness.” Apple Corps., 843 F. Supp. at 347.(emphasis in original). Rather, the statute is “narrowly drawn,” id., “proscribing only the unauthorized use of another’s name or likeness in advertising.” Id. at 347 n.2. The limited Case scope of uses prohibited by the statute was explained in Apple Corps. In a Beatles look-alike performance case, the court granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that, while the defendants’ advertisements for their performances did violate the TPRPA, the performances themselves did not. Id. at 347-49. Even though the defendants engaged in the performances as a commercial endeavor, the court reasoned that defendants’ use of the Beatles’ personas during the performances and the Beatles logo on the group’s bass drum did not violate the TPRPA because the statute only forbids use of name or likeness for the purpose of “advertising” or “soliciting” purchases of goods or services. Id. ...”).

69.5.89.104 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer no trolling, cheers. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 00:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
In case you miss it on Nansema's talk page: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Posted via phone) Ah, thank you, I'll look it over tomorrow. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 01:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Note
I've taken the liberty of reverting the troll and putting in an RPP for this page. I hope you don't mind. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot - September
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ken Scott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helter Skelter (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) 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. :) yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 15:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
— <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Barrett crazy diamond version.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Barrett crazy diamond version.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barrett (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I'm a Man (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) 15:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Old Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ascot


 * The Greatest Hits – Volume 1: 20 Good Vibrations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Kokomo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm Moving On (Yoko Ono song)
I've rolled back your good faith edits. I understood what was going on at that RM; I think you just saw it before an admin was able to make the move. An admin moved the main page but not the talk page; I'll try to get this sorted out. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pink Floyd bootleg albums
Category:Pink Floyd bootleg albums, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Barrett
Hi Yeepsi, nice to hear from you. I've been working away (offline) on another GH song article − driving me crazy, the price of having too many books to source from. I'd be happy to take a look at the Barrett album article but I'm afraid it might have to wait a while. Want to get this song article (Wah-Wah) out the way first and I've got a few real-world things to attend to as well ... Will try to give it some time this week hopefully. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Yeepsi. I took a quick look at Barrett and cut some non-notable/irrelevant (imo) points. Problem is, from first glance, that the tone of the lead-in reads just like the start of an article proper (if you get my drift), not as a summary/overview of what follows. I do think there's a lot of extraneous detail in the article − it reads a bit like a sessions logbook in places, which I'd always thought was a problem with Madcap as well. Already from what I've seen, there are issues regarding the presentation of information; an obvious example is the so-called Background section, particularly the fact that a July 1970 concert is referred to and then we go back to February '70 and album recording. (So how can an event that takes place part-way through recording be background, I'm wondering. Also, it seems that mention of the plan for the Barrett album [currently at start of lead-in] and any details like that belong here in Background.) I'll come back and take another look when I can − soon, I hope. Oh, and sorry: when deleting something early in the article I've ended up leaving a later reference text-less; I hope that's not difficult to fix. PS: bit surprised to see this rated as a B in its current state (to put it mildly!) Hope this helps, yeepsi, I don't mean to sound like some know-it-all [insert expletive]]. Just seems that info's been loaded onto the page with little thought for structure, and without much of a discerning eye for what's notable or even of interest to a music-knowledgeable reader (but not necessarily the Abbey Road equivalent of a train spotter!) My advice − and it's something I do myself − would be to map out the article sections (offline or on paper or something) and plan where the various points and details belong; I find that process really helps bring a piece together, because you soon realise what's waffly info and what isn't, and the sections and presentation end up with a more readable flow. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again Yeepsi. Sorry not to reply before − your message came through at the same time as a disambig notice, so I must've missed it. Don't quite understand the point you made about "Madcap did have a sessions logbook of sorts to detail it (w/ Syd's thoughts/feels/comments & events during the recording, etc.), whereas Barrett didn't (it was looking similar to a session logbook) ..." My point is/was that the Barrett article, like Madcap imo, concentrates too much on day-by-day recording info − listing what was achieved, and not, at each and every session − and I really can't see that this is notable. (These things are all relative, of course: a session-by-session account of work on "Strawberry Field Forever", say, or tracks from Blonde on Blonde would almost be expected, I imagine, in their relevant wiki articles, because the recording of those works offers so many points of notability in itself − simply because the songs are so well known. But in the case of the Barrett albums, just because the recording info happens to be available, doesn't make it notable − that's my way of thinking at least.) Aside from this recording-history overkill in the Barrett article, though, I think what's missing is something informative about background/context for the album. That line that's currently in the lead-in − "The main aim for the Barrett sessions was to give Barrett the structure and focus many felt was missing during the long and unwieldy sessions for The Madcap Laughs" − belongs in the Background section (this is what I meant earlier about the tone of the lead-in reading too much like the start of the main article text; easy to fix). Also under Background, I'm wondering why his record company bothered with a second Barrett solo album. Madcap production went on and on (must've been expensive for EMI?); it sounds like Barrett had been impossible to work with during the sessions, and the results weren't good (eg those comments from Jenner or whoever it was); plus, the record didn't sell at all − so, at the start of this article's Background section, seems some comment on these issues would be welcome before the statement "The main aim for the Barrett sessions was to give Barrett the structure ..." As always, hope this helps, yeepsi (?). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Yeepsi ... I was just about to apologise for not replying sooner, then I noticed that I began the message above with "Sorry not to reply before ..." Can't keep repeating myself, or I'll end up sounding like a Wings album. Just wanted to say thanks for being hot on my heels with "Sour Milk Sea" – a C is much more respectable. Because I'd been reading up on Sour Milk/Lomax etc, thought I might as well start an article for the parent album, Is This What You Want?. Awaiting importance and quality ratings if you've got the time (?). Hope life's treating you well. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeepsi, you're a dude – a B for Is This ...?, thanks so much! No, I've never been a fan of Wings, or Mac for that matter, I'm afraid. I just find him too phoney, too showbiz – sorry 'bout that(!). I'm impressed you tracked down a copy of the Lomax album; that's one I've never bothered about but I probably will sometime. Have you got the Apple albums Doris Troy and Encouraging Words? Now, they're both excellent. JG66 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of unreleased Pink Floyd material, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Promotional video (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) 16:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot - October
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notices
The issue of a Watchlist notice is now up for a !vote,Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Beatles_RfC

Love Me Do
Hi. I've started a GA review of Love Me Do which I've now placed on hold. I think there are significant issues with the article which I suspect will take a while to address. However, as long as reasonable progress is being made toward sorting out the issues I would be willing to keep the GAN open for a month or more. I would suggest it's worth contacting other contributors to help out - the more the merrier. If you would prefer to work on the article at a more leisurely pace, let me know on the GAN or my talkpage, and we can close the GAN early.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

RE:Love Me Do
Hello SilkTork. Based on the issues that need to be fixed, I'd like to work on it at a leisurely pace, and close the GAN early. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 21:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. If I get time I'll help out where I can.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  21:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

David Gilmour (album): US or U.S.?
Hi, Yeepsi!

My God, all these messages. You work on Pink Floyd and Beatles articles? How can one man carry such a workload?!? I'd go nuts.

So: Is the abbreviation for "United States" really US and not U.S.? I have to say, honestly, it looks wrong to me. Of course, I do often see the United Kingdom referred to as the UK, but I don't see the same when the United States of America is abbreviated. Is there some kind of stylistic guide about this?

It's actually my fault this question has even come up. It was originally "American FM radio" before I edited the article. I have had some Canadians remind me that they, too, are located in America, and they don't like us co-opting the whole term "American". I think they'd like to see the term "U.S. Americans" take off, but I don't see that happening.

Well, in case you couldn't tell, this question has pretty much been just an excuse to come say Hi, after running into your name in the History of all the Pink Floyd articles I've contributed to. It's practically a fan letter. You do great work! You can respond on my Talk page or yours, it doesn't matter to me.

Sincerely, --Ben Culture (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

UK v.s. US date format RE: Beach Boys articles
Hey there Yeepsi! I noticed you rolled back a few of the dating edits I made tonight (silly me, I was on my phone and forgot to log in) and I was wondering if the US artist = US dating formatting rule is iron clad here on Wikipedia. I made the change to UK dating as the added commas of the US format created more clutter in the infoboxes. I know it sounds petty, but when you've got a band like the Beach Boys where we can (and do) input multiple recording dates, I believe every saved character adds to the readability.

Sincerely, Jamekae (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Discovery (Electric Light Orchestra album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Balance of Power (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) 01:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Phenomena (Pink Floyd album) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Phenomena (Pink Floyd album). Since you had some involvement with the Phenomena (Pink Floyd album) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Amsterdam 1969 (Harvest) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Amsterdam 1969 (Harvest). Since you had some involvement with the Amsterdam 1969 (Harvest) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Syd barrett octopusFR.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Syd barrett octopusFR.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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Subpages
Hi, why are you creating all these subpages? Graham Colm (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They are unnecessary. I less you can enlighten me, I think you are creating a big mess for others to clean up. Graham Colm (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle
Thanks for your revert of the IP 199 at Imagine song. You likely already know this, but you could activate twinkle, and then you would be able to rollback those types of edits in one, versus manually and individually. Alternately, you could apply for rollbacker privs, which I am sure would be granted to you. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Saucerful of Secrets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Promotional video (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) 11:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot - November
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Doris Troy (album)
Hi again Yeepsi. All that talk about Apple albums from the late '60s/early '70s – I couldn't help myself, just had to come up with a Doris Troy album article! Would be great if you could assess it, if you've got the time? Big thanks, JG66 (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Yeepsi. You're a pal. JG66 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Weight of the World (Ringo Starr song), Yeepsi!

Wikipedia editor Nkansahrexford just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"perhaps you can add 1 or two images of the singer and the album art. But, btw, nice article"

To reply, leave a comment on Nkansahrexford's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Pink Floyd changes
Please stop your changes and discuss any proposals first, preferably at the Pink Floyd wikiproject page. I will revert all your changes until you do this. Parrot of Doom 19:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Traveling Wilburys list of band members
Hi there, Yeepsi, how are you? I notice you've contributed quite a bit to the Traveling Wilburys band article over the last year or so. Well, I've started a discussion on the talk page about which order the band members should be listed in – I'm sure it's an issue that has been raised in the past, but I'd welcome your input if you have time. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in there, Yeepsi. I'd like to think what I've just added to the discussion might be enough to gain consensus ... I guess we'll find out! Cheers, JG66 (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot - December
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your edits to "Ibiza Bar"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibiza_Bar&diff=492569610&oldid=492548070 Yeepsi, are you aware that, among your many edits to this article, you edited once for the apparent sole purpose of de-Wikifying a song title? If that's the term I'm looking for. This article makes reference to another Pink Floyd song, "The Gold It's in the..." and you edited OUT the link to that song's article. I mean, all you did was make it not a wiki link anymore. It's not like you were neatening up the paragraph by removing needless verbiage. The words are all still there. All you did was make things somewhat less convenient. It's quite beyond me why you'd want to do that. The same paragraph also refers to "The Nile Song", "Young Lust", and two album titles, but you didn't de-Wikify those. Just the one song title. I'm hoping you'll say you were just sleepy or something and made a mistake. Mind you, I'm not saying the article for "The Gold It's in the..." is any good. It's kind of terrible, actually. But pretending it doesn't exist wouldn't help. The more people that see the article, the more likely one of them will improve it. Needless to say, I'm putting the double brackets back around the song title.

So, that's the part I know I'm right about. This other thing, not so much, but here goes: So, people keep coming along wanting to add descriptive terms like "Hard rock" or "Heavy Metal music" to the "Genre" category. And you just keep reverting them with very brief Edit Summaries like "Source?" I think more is required. I mean, we're talking about labels. You know critics don't often write things like "This is a Heavy Metal song, while that is Psychedelic Rock", and such. If they wrote helpful things like that all the time, they'd all be out of their jobs! Insisting on a source to use a label for one song is a little unfair, I think. I mean, I would be opposed to a long list of labels for one song, but I don't see the harm in adding "Hard Rock" to the song's info box without a source. It doesn't seem one should need a source for something that obvious. Look at "The Nile Song": We write about the actual music, the six key changes, without citing the sheet music -- which was my fault, and I'm going to go fix that right now, but I mean, it's been up there at least four years without. We've been happy to take each other's words for that, but we're slapping down descriptive labels within a few days? I think there should be some discussion on it. Has there already been one? Maybe you could point me towards it. Respectfully, --Ben Culture (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I read your replies, thank you. I should have guessed it was something like that, regarding 'The Gold It's in the...".
 * Another way of looking at the problem with the genre labels is this: Because a guy at Allmusic described "The Nile Song" as "one of the heaviest" Pink Floyd songs, somebody used that as a citation to add "Heavy Metal" to the Genre section. And I guess, because he had a source, you didn't mind and didn't delete it. (Even though the journalist NEVER SAID it was "Heavy Metal", just "heaviest".)
 * But, first of all, it ain't Heavy Metal, not nearly. What it IS is Hard Rock. (That article describes the difference between the two genres very well.)
 * Secondly, the "Ibiza Bar" article has only "Psychedelic Rock" to describe it, because no professional reviewer's gonna waste his time writing about a D-list Early Post-Barrett Pink Floyd soundtrack-filler song like that! It's a terrible, uninspired song, with such uncharacteristically-cruddy lyrics, that Gilmour's vocals were undermixed. Yet, it sounds exactly like "The Nile Song", except in the being-any-good sense. The band was still floundering without Syd, to some extent, searching for a style and hungry for hit records. They came off their "Nile Song" high, feeling (justifiably) awesome, and said "Let's do another one just like that!" So, without bothering with good lyrics or clever key changes, they just proceeded to bash another hard-rocker onto record. The two songs sound so similar, if ONE is going to have a specific Genre label, the other must have it also.
 * Thanks as always for your time, attention and thoughts.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kisses on the Bottom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bass and Matthew Cooper (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) 11:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discogs
I noticed your great work at The Piper at the Gates of Dawn and saw that you used Discogs as a source with these edits. FYI, since this article is a good article candidate, that source will likely be challenged, as it has user-generated content (WikiProject_Albums/Sources). To make their information and citations more legitimate, you could use Template:Cite album-notes and basically use the description at the Discogs pages (label, catalogue/publisherid, format, etc.) Dan56 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Personnel of A Saucerful of Secrets
You did a good work in the article, but I think that some things should be added:
 * David Gilmour played kazoo on "Corporal Clegg".
 * Richard Wright played xylophone (not vibraphone) on "See-Saw".
 * I'm not sure, but a source I check said that Syd Barrett played both acoustic and electric guitar on "Jugband Blues" and that Roger Waters sang backing vocals on the same song. Amb1997 talk 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Help
Recently I asked about a huge amount of David Bowie songs which were not notable and unsourced to be redirected. I have no objections so I redirected them and if anything people were happy because it really cleaned up and cut down Bowie's info to a Wikipedia standard. So I tried the same will John Lennon's solo discography which was almost as bad and I came across trouble with another user undoing my work. he tried to tell me that articles such as "Tight A$", "Only People" and "Old Dirt Road" somehow proved notability. I didn't want to go through the whole AfD since I felt they all were obvious candidates for immediate redirect, but now it seems I might have to. My point is when I do nominate these 3 songs are well about about half a dozen others, please support my argument, since I saw you immediately added categories to the songs after I redirected, so I assume you agree that I had done right. Thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about Newyorkbrad's closure of Beatles RfC
Hello. This is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius about Newyorkbrad's closure of the RfC about whether to use upper-case "The" or lowercase "the" in mid-sentence in articles about (t/T)he Beatles. You are receiving this message because you were involved in the mediation case that led up to the RfC. Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the caveat in Newyorkbrad's close that "[t]he suggestion that editors should try to structure sentences to avoid unnecessary mid-sentence use of "the Beatles" remains a valid one", and the discussion is focused on how that caveat is affecting the editing decisions in Beatles-related articles. There is also the opportunity to discuss other aspects of the close should the need arise. Please see the points at the top of the discussion thread and leave a comment if you think it is appropriate. Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 13:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney touring Australia
I have in effect re-posted what you arbitrarily deleted from the Paul McCartney 'talk' page.

I am after information on Paul McCartney not covered by the article. As I see it it is deficient – albeit on a point probably of little interest to a number of people outside Australia... but I am interested. I noted that he gave a reason for not appearing in concert c.2002. I'm not saying he's justified or not.

I am not here to debate the issue of why he so infrequently tours Australia.

I wish to understand if there is any stated reason.

If there is no known reason, you could simply have replied that there is none.

Maybe he has no reason, perhaps it just never occurs to him. That itself would suffice –as I noted I’m not here to debate the reason, just to find out ‘why?’

Montalban (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gml uk.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Gml uk.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gml spanish.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Gml spanish.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dark horse germany.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Dark horse germany.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dark horse spain.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Dark horse spain.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pan the Piper

 * Thanks! :) Happy holidays yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Syd Barrett
Hi. Good job on the Syd Barrett article. Any plans on taking it to WP:FAC? I'm sure the article meets all criteria. Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gml spanish.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Gml spanish.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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)