User talk:PL290/Archive 1

Welcome

 * - Thank you! PL290 (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Hi, Hi
Sources I can find say "a song by the group Wings" was mentioned by the BBC in 1972 in relation to Give Ireland Back to the Irish, and I can find nothing in relation to HHH except that it was banned for "sexual suggestiveness"; so I've reverted this for the time being. If you can find a source, fine. Rodhull andemu  20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! I'm not in any doubt that this was done for HHH! (Don't know about the other one but presumably they would have used the same form of words for each ban.) Even though I'm certain it's correct, I wouldn't normally condone adding without a citation, but since the whole BBC ban lacks any citation so will need sorting out at some point, I think it's reasonable in this case and would like to see it included... but if you still feel strongly otherwise, let's leave it out till someone finds a source. PL290 (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have dug a bit, and the weight of evidence on the internet does seem to be against me! Also browsing the Feb 72 and Dec 72 weekly charts reinforces further that I was probably mistaken, from associations I have of where I was at the time in each case. I have a clear memory of DJs saying "a record by the group Wings" but of course they did not then play the song which therefore remained unidentified, so I must have made the false connection later after HHH was also banned. (Supported further by the fact that in those days I was not aware of the song Give Ireland Back To The Irish.) Anyway, this exploration of my past is purely trivia for my own enjoyment, and I take from this episode a lesson I didn't think I needed about the folly of adding unsourced material. PL290 (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The Fabs
Look at my suggestions on the talk page. We could satisfy everyone with a summary on the main page, but link each header to a more detailed article.--andreasegde (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw them, you're thinking the same way; if editors can accept the idea of losing the current detailed (history) article which is trying to do everything in one place, and having several specific ones instead, that will be the breakthrough I think. It can evolve much more freely from there even if it's not 100% balanced straight away. PL290 (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest starting a new article, "The Beatles in Hamburg", and taking it from there. When other articles are created, there will come a time when the History page is redundant.--andreasegde (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if no consensus is reached about a splitting approach. I'd like to give that a chance first and I think people will come to an agreement once they've had a chance to get used to the idea. My preference is not to try and force the issue by changing things while that's being discussed. PL290 (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Tweak all you like on The Beatles in Hamburg. I'm just throwing stuff in there with a large shovel, so I haven't had time to really read through it for mistakes, and there are quite a few, I think.--andreasegde (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Any particular reason you had to comment on my Talk page entry about peak limiting on the remasters? Maybe need some help staying focused?  R ad io pa th y  •talk• 01:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Puzzled by this! Perhaps you intended to leave this message for editor just64helpin, the originator of the only response I can see to your peak limiting entry?

Radiopathy, I noticed you reverted my attempt to clean up this segment of text. The older version contained a very long side note that I reworked to avoid brackets. Long, bracketed passages should really be avoided in the article. Your revert was done without explanation. just64helpin (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As to your reaction, my own impression is that the comment is simply a request for you to explain why you reverted, sensibly located under your earlier point about the peak limiting in case it had anything to do with that (although his edit didn't in fact seem to me to go against that earlier point). His comment is perhaps slighly bluntly worded, but I think not uncivil, and his work was undone. How about simply responding there with the actual explanation he's asking for? PL290 (talk) 06:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Team Spirit
There's nothing better. If you go on like this (with the very dedicated DenDodge as well) I'm going to start handing out Barnstars. More has been done to improve The Beatles' articles in the last month than the whole of last year. Grrreat, as Johnny would have said.--andreasegde (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there's some good stuff going on with The Beatles articles, not least resulting from your own dedicated and prolific work. It seemed a few feathers were ruffled by my moderately spectacular debut on the Talk page, what with the famous "The" closely followed by the merger/split disagreements, but I then saw from the Talk archives that in fact the disturbances I stirred up pale into insignificance compared with actually quite a lot of what's gone before! I have to say I was very impressed that although a small number of the responses I got were perhaps merely provocative, much of what people said was very civil, intelligent and reasonable, and continued to be so despite my minority of about one! Anyway, that's history, but as you say, the improvements currently being made on Beatles articles are very encouraging, and it's great to be working on them with such people. PL290 (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles in Hamburg
The Beatles in Hamburg is now a Good Article. You have worked well on this. Congratulations. Now take it up to FA status.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent news! Thanks for your help and guidance along the way. PL290 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is good to look at: The Charts--andreasegde (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to give you some advice, which is that sentences like "weeks later, Beatlemania was to grip his country too" are frowned upon by reviewers. They like it to be dry, dry, dry... almost in the manner of an old man in a tweed jacket that works for the British Museum. They complain that it's POV, or weasel words, or anything that strays from the strict norm, according to the man in the tweed jacket. I had to/grew to agree, because once the line has been crossed, sentences can be thrown in like "their fantastic tour which overwhelmed the audiences."


 * If you think this advice is a load of old codswallop, I don't mind at all, and feel free to do as you like, but should you try to take an article to FA, you'll see what I mean (ouch!, and ouch! again. :)) You're doing a lot of great, great work on The Beatles' articles, and I only wanted to pass on some advice.--andreasegde (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right; thanks for picking me up on that. Noted and appreciated. PL290 (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * I'm moved with gratitude, and do indeed sing "Yeah, yeah, yeah", and also "Dry, dry, dry" as I try, try, try ("With a Little Help from My Friends") to keep from crossing that fine line between engaging prose and the blatherings of a non-tweed-jacket-wearer. PL290 (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Beatlemania in the UK
The article is on hold, please view the talkpage for details. Thanks, and good luck! Carpet Crawler message me  23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must commend you for the excellent work on the article. I hope to see more from you in the future! :) Carpet Crawler  message me  20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, and thank you once again for your helpfulness during the review. PL290 (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on displaying time since last edit
Hi, you weighed in on the "display time since last edit on article" discussion at the Village pump. I have now started a straw poll on the subject at WP:Village pump (proposals). Your opinion would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Collaborations
Great idea you have! Create an article page entitled 'Collaborations with fellow ex-Beatles', and many singles/albums/(other songs) not mentioned in these article discographies will be shown here. Absolutely brilliant! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Your take on the idea has now set me thinking more about it: see Collaborations between fellow ex-Beatles :) PL290 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I have something for our Collaborations article. Now, I'm not going to put this in the article, but might you want to, great! It's a good idea, I think. This is about collaborations (what a long word!) on videos, music videos, and movies. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr appeared together in the 1983 music video "So Bad" from Pipes of Peace. A year later, as you already know, they appeared together again in the movie Give My Regards to Broad Street.
 * The closest thing to a Beatles/Wings group reunion would consist of a line-up including the two surviving Beatles, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, and also the remaining "core" group members of Wings, which, along with McCartney, is Denny Laine. I bring this up because in-between 1980 and 1984, all three have appeared alongside with one another on Paul's "solo" material (though, I personally consider both McCartney and McCartney II albums as Wings albums, even though they're memtioned as otherwise).
 * Well, till next time...Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your ongoing input to the collaborations article is good, and others have started to get involved, which is is good too. The albums and singles are now quite well populated so it's probably time those two section tags were removed. I had the same thought as you about including other creative collaborations such as film. Please don't feel you have to ask my "permission" to do something like that as I don't WP:OWN the article! If you're really in doubt though, the article talk page would be best for that kind of discussion so as to get the benefit of ideas from all interested parties. To reply to your request for editing and article nomination on your behalf as an IP user, I don't think I'd feel comfortable with doing that and would suggest you register as a named user for those kind of things. Sorry if this disappoints but I expect you'll understand. Best wishes anyway. PL290 (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles and Seltaeb
I appreciate your willingness to reconsider the size/placement of the Seltaeb info in the The Beatles article. When I have strong feelings about content, I try to make as strong an argument as possible for my point of view and when I re-read those comments they often seem like badgering. That's not my intent. To counteract that badgering, I'd like to thank you for working collaboratively and mention that your request to get comments from others is wise. I think there is a place in the article for the Seltaeb material, perhaps in an expanded "Studio years' section that includes information about Brian's death, but let's see what other editors think. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks John; I don't mind your comments and I always welcome your opinions. It's not the first time you've led me to change my mind and I'm sure it won't be the last. You have earned the right to use "ridiculous" in a (then-edited) comment about material I've added, knowing that I'll smile to myself and reflect that if you're saying that, you've probably got a point. Well spotted about the dodgy citation, by the way. PL290 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So there you both are. I was just browsing your user page PL290 and seeing this, couldn’t resist leaving a comment now that the dust has settled. I think this: there was a problem regarding the page number on the template (it took you to another page) so John was apoplectic when seeing no supporting material there. It took me a while to realise this and I’ve fixed it now. I know he also has an opinion (and so do I) regarding the importance of the Seltaeb thing, but that’s another issue. On the page it ought to have shown, Peter Brown describes the emotional mess Epstein was in at that time and cites - as do a lot of other books - Seltaeb as being one of the many demons tormenting him. I thought it perfectly fair to sum up his mood as "depression". However, there’s being a bit pissed off depression - and there’s clinical depression. I was casually using the former form of it I suppose but, even though Epstein was probably the latter, I can’t find any references to him being diagnosed as clinically depressed, so it’s safer removed. So there you have it in a tea cup. The saucer is bit cracked now I’m afraid, but the cup can still be used - Cheers.--Patthedog (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It may have been said in jest, but even so saying I was apoplectic is quite an insult. I certainly was not in a state of extreme rage or excitement, on the verge o having a seizure. I was simply trying to improve the article and I came across a citation where the source material did not support the assertion in the article. It wasn't some who-cares case of a date being wrong or something, it used the term "depression" in a discussion of someone who later died under mysterious circumstances, was clearly self-destructive, and may have committed suicide. If WikiPedia isn't accurate about something like that then it's not much of an encyclopedia.
 * I think the inclusion of the Seltaeb info in the two-paragraph "America" section is out of place and borders on the absurd; Epstein reviewing merchandising opportunities is more important than the response from radio personalities like Murray the K to The Beatles arrival? More important than the press conference at the airport? More important than the concern about how difficult it was for English acts to succeed in America? Despite thinking it's absurd, I've resisted editing that section myself (to remove it) and instead I addressed the issue on the article's talk page. I have also resisted the urge to insult the editors who don't agree with me.
 * Lastly, if "a lot of other books" say that "Seltaeb [was] one of the many demons tormenting him", then it ought to be easy to cite one. Don't neglect the other demons. They must be mentioned, too: Seltaeb becomes the demon if the other's aren't mentioned, and that's misleading. All of which argues, IMO, for Seltaeb to be left in its own article with a link from the Epstein article, but I've given up on getting that outcome. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

John, It was said teasingly as banter, and I thought you’d smile at it. I certainly never intended to offend you, and I’m sorry I have. Like you, I’ve always (so far anyway!) managed to stop myself from insulting other editors, but you’ve never been one of them. As for Seltaeb: you are aware that The Beatles’ could have made far more money from that alone (bearing in mind their ridiculous recording contract) than the records would earn them? It’s not only about the music is it? The Beatles were a singularity that distorted everything, and I want to see the whole picture if possible. Yes, I will find all the relevant stuff for the Seltaeb (I hate trying to type that!) article, and I will herd all of the demons into it if I can catch the blighters. Pour yourself a cold beer (you deserve it) and watch Brazil play USA live on telly. Kicks off 19:30 London time. --Patthedog (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Patthedog, I'm sure John's glad you didn't intend to offend, but I have to say he makes a very compelling case above. No, it's not only about the music, but it isn't only about the money either, is it. Anyway, you want to see the whole picture too, and you are working hard to establish it, and that, in my view, is the important thing to finish doing first, so that the Seltaeb (I hate typing it too!) article can state complete, soundly supported facts, not just seem to imply the connections we think are there. Anyway, keep up the good work, and have a beer yourself. (I have to abstain as I don't drink on Sundays—not because I think it would imply beer's more important than Jesus or whatever, just because I like a beer most days and like to keep a clear day a week for health reasons, and this happens to be the day that suits best). PL290 (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, taking a look at the America section of The Beatles article: instead of trying to ruthlessly batter to death a passing mention of Seltaeb, why not expand other aspects of it? I’m inclined to say that once you had decided to effectively bullet point events then this sort of apparent imbalance would occur. Seltaeb did come along at this moment and is therefore entitled to its two sentences or whatever. If that makes the rest of the paragraph appear lopsided then that’s just the way it is. Click on the links. Wasn’t that the point?--Patthedog (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Patthedog, the idea was to keep The Beatles article a reasonable length, and that means a lot of details should appear in sub-articles only and the summaries in the main article must be written very carefully. I don't think Seltaeb is "entitled to its two sentences or whatever" because if we gave each topic two sentences the article won't be as good. Doing that would defeat the goal of introducing sub-articles.


 * Brian made multiple errors that cost The Beatles money. Perhaps Seltaeb was the worst; I don't know. I do know that the main article mentions Seltaeb but doesn't say anything about the blunder, the amount of money lost/involved, or the effect on Epstein's mental health. I think the current entry should be deleted. Perhaps it could be added back in as part of a brief summary of Epstein's death, something the article lacks now (probably lost as part of the split into sub-articles) and clearly more important than Seltaeb! &mdashh; John Cardinal (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it all to me John. Seltaeb is entitled to its mention in the correct order of things because it happened and it was big and Epstein was scared enough to keep it a secret from The Beatles. I’m surprised you don’t see it as I do, but we obviously have different perspectives which is absolutely fine. I will keep campaigning for its inclusion. --Patthedog (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Patthedog, you've referred more than once to differences of opinion or perspective: surely that misses the point? An encyclopedia presents facts. You don't need all that explaining to you either so I'm not going to insult you by loading this comment with wikilinks. I said John's presented a compelling case; that needn't stop you from doing the same. There have been very few participants so far (that I know of) in this debate; a large body of the community has remained silent. I know it's frustrating for you; and by the way, I hope nothing I've said implies sweeping criticism of the seltaeB article, because none's intended; I read the article with interest and I think it's good. You listed above why it's important to The Beatles but you left off the last, and most dramatic, events in the sequence (if the facts do indeed support this): "...and Epstein was scared enough to keep it a secret from The Beatles which affected his mental health, which was a factor in his drug overdose whether or not deliberate, and his death was a factor in (or even caused; they fell apart without him) the breakup of The Beatles". Your cause, if I may call it that since you are championing it, is best furthered by continuing to clarify the facts (and others, including myself, will be joining in with this as and when possible) but until that's done I feel you work against your cause by pressing further too soon. Seltaeb's significance, and therefore whether to highlight it in the main article or a sub-article, depends on those facts. PL290 (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is possible to have a perspective as well. For example, John thinks it “absurd” that Seltaeb gets mentioned. He thinks it’s not important - that’s his opinion. I believe it is relevant and so that’s my opinion. Neither view changes the facts though. O.K: on May 13th 1967 Epstein was admitted to the Priory Clinic in Roehampton to undergo treatment for insomnia, agitation, anxiety and depression. The treatment was generally regarded as unsuccessful. He was also extremely worried that The Beatles would not renew their contracts with him in the Autumn, quote Peter Brown: “ … he [Epstein] was worried by what he saw as The Beatles growing discontent. They [The Beatles] were slowly hearing bits and pieces of the Seltaeb fiasco…”. There’s a lot of that sort of stuff so I put it to you that Epstein’s mental problems were made worse by the Seltaeb episode. If he was depressed, then that was a contributing factor. I'm still working on this so will move onto the Seltaeb page now. BTW, you've not offended me! --Patthedog (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Patthedog, I never said Seltaeb wasn't important. I don't think it should be a major focus of the Beatles arrival in America, and I've never read a book that made it so. I think giving Seltaeb prominence in The Beatles article is wrong; Seltaeb deserves prominence in the Epstein article (where it is mentioned but without any connection to his death!) and obviously it has its own article. Why doesn't someone who has a passion for this topic improve the Seltaeb article and the Epstein article and then worry about The Beatles article later?
 * I wish you would read my posts more carefully. I didn't say that it was absurd that Seltaeb gets mentioned. I said, "the inclusion of the Seltaeb info in the two-paragraph 'America' section is out of place and borders on the absurd." That's not the same thing.
 * I certainly wouldn't argue that you aren't entitled to your opinion. However, I think your arguments are weak or nonexistent for the specific items I keep raising which are (1) the level of detail in The Beatles article and (2) the placement within same. You have not responded to those issues as far as I can tell; if you have, please point me to it. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

John, if your tactics are to bore me to death then they are working. Move over to the Selteab article please.--Patthedog (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review of Get on Your Boots
As no progress appears to be happening, may I suggest that you fail this and move on. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems a pity! Having established what work's needed, I was hoping to give it a chance to be completed. It has been a while though, you're right; it's not causing me a problem but maybe there's some other reason I should be aware of for not delaying longer? PL290 (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Big Star (band)
My dear friend, PL290, in your absolutely wonderful article about Big Star, please, "for you must", wiki-link in the openning sentence American to American (trust me!). You know, I did not realise just how good an editor you truly are until I discovered that you can nominate articles for a GA, FL, FA status. I read some of these you did, and you are GREAT! I have something that I've done which I'm so very proud of myself for, this is a listing I truly want you to see, and I hope to God you can somehow nominate it to a FA/FL status...and this article listing I'm talking about is ABBA discography. Please check this out, if you would. I promise you, my friend, PL290, that if you do this for me, I will definately reward you with an Original Barnstar. (I think you should already have one, but in my heart, for me, I will reward you this and respectfully look up to you if you do this for me, please!) Your "collaborating" friend, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the positive feedback; see Collaborations above for combined reply to both your messages. PL290 (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Feel.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:Feel.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Ballad of el Goodo.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:The Ballad of el Goodo.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:September Gurls.ogg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:September Gurls.ogg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Papa November (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:What's Going Ahn.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:What's Going Ahn.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney GAR notification
As someone who has been actively involved in the reorganization discussions you should know that Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed
Hi, PL290. Here's the source for McCartney reaching #1 as a solo artist, duo, trio, quartet, quintet, and musical ensemble group - it's from the book British Hit Singles & Albums page #337. Hope this helps...Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice! Do you have the edition number, publication year and ISBN? Those are needed before it can be used as a source. PL290 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. This is how it reads: (November 1952 - 31 December 2005) 19th edition Copyright 2006 Guiness World Records Limited, a Hit Entertainment Limited Company. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN-13 9781904994107 / ISBN-10 1904994105. (The book lists two ISBNs, so here's exactly what the copyright page shows).  --76.198.234.254 (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise you'd already added it to the article! I've formatted it as ref now anyway. Good find - I'll leave you to tick it off in Talk:Paul McCartney/GA1 - no reason I should take the credit. By the way, saw your edit in the Lead: a definite improvement. Establishes notability much more immediately. PL290 (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Paul's info is all found on page 337 in the book.
 * Thank you. I'm not ticked at all in any way, just glad to help! Oh, TonyTheTiger left you a message on Paul's Talk page...Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Partial Restoration of article's sub-topic
Hi, PL290...TonyTheTiger (Triple-T, as I'm going to start calling him), appears to want the article re-increased in size, so I have an idea. Might it work if "Relationships and marriages" were possibly restored, albeit at a much smaller and more brief level. I've commented about this on Paul's talk-page already. What do you think? - Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Musical ensemble
Hi, my friend... editorially, when using either "group" or "band" in your articles, if you were to have it wiki-linked, always first place two brackets and the words "musical ensemble" and then again place the two brackets afterwards. Ex: The Beatles were a pop band from Liverpool, England. (After reading this, click on "edit this page" so you can see this.) Your friend, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheer brilliance
I refer you to this wonderful bit of prose, for such it is:

"Ahem. We respectfully remind the honourable reviewer, who is no doubt busy with many other matters too, that consensus for splitting out the relationships was reached prior to the action being taken. A consensus which, as can be seen in this very conversation, the honourable reviewer was aware of; and not only was aware of but joined with; and not only joined with but reinforced very specific aspects of; all in all, in fact, confirming the precise action taken and result obtained in terms of not falling below about 40K of readable prose. The consensus was reached over a 12-week period, recognizing the principle no need for haste and the other principles embodied by WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE. Additionally, it was observed at the start of the review that "much is made of his relationships in the article", demonstrating—albeit while making a different point—an imbalance of article content: further confirmation that the consensus to split out relationships was soundly based. The resulting, more balanced article appears to be exactly as envisaged and intended when consensus for the action was reached. In view of all these facts the reviewer may wish to withdraw the above commment."

Pure, unadulterated magic. Words fail me. I doff my cap to you, Sir.--andreasegde (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
Hi, you reverted my edit at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. I thought it was ok because I wasn't changing the proposal even slightly; just clarifying something that many people seemed to be missing because of not reading it carefully. Is that wrong? Anyway, you reverted some unrelated comment I had left below; I've restored that. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I realise your intent was only to clarify (and I agree clarification is good) but in my opinion, no, we should never change the wording of a poll or any such thing once a response has been made. Even given universal agreement that it "didn't change the proposal even slightly", making a wording change would still be inappropriate: existing responses are based on existing (and unclarified) wording. Changing proposal wording presumes that each respondent, if carefully reviewing your modification, would affirm an unchanged response; in practice that is unlikely to happen, and some respondents may even never look again; meanwhile, you present their responses, to all subsequent viewers, as applying to your new wording. I trust this clarifies! PL290 (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I agree; you're right. Shows it's crucial to get wording right the first time. Thanks for explaining! Shreevatsa (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Was and were
Hi, PL...I saw that what you and Andre did yesterday, absolutely brilliant!!! I tip my hat to you both on this. I'm glad it was saved so I could have the chance to read it. Smashing!!! --76.198.234.254 (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Cavernous GA
Thanks for deleting the duplicate comment - I came second in an edit conflict (with you!), and pasted in both parts of what was meant to be one long comment. As for the effort, The Beatles are worth it - but there's so much to say about them in total that defining the scope of daughter articles needs a lot of thought. --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does need a lot of thought; I don't know if you follow the drama at Talk:The Beatles but efforts have been made to address the structure in talks there on and off for some time, and I'm no longer optimistic it can be achieved in that way. From my own experience of planning and executing any meaningful work or project, some agreement about structure is needed up front, but if the parties don't all see it that way, it becomes necessary to move forward piecemeal. Hence my own personal hope that the "Cavern" article or whatever it should be called can take the right shape now. If it doesn't, then my fear is that the momentum gathered, to which you have contributed considerably, will just be lost again. PL290 (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody answered your comments. No comments at all, and therefore, no drama. You're not the first, and you won't be the last to think you can steer the ship. I particularly dislike your rambling POV, which does not include references. This is not "Hello!" magazine. Best wishes... --andreasegde (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Award

 * Many thanks to you and all the others who contributed to the article along the way. PL290 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Beatles in 1968
Hello PL290, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Beatles in 1968 has been removed. It was removed by ThaddeusB with the following edit summary ' (contest prod - article contains material not found in The Beatles: the studio years, suggest merge instead) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with ThaddeusB before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Rain (Beatles' song)
Hello PL290, I noticed you have undone my revision on the musical structure section in the article on the Beatles' song 'Rain'. Based on Alan W. Pollack's article on this song and listening to the song, I am convinced that the third measure of the refrain is not in 6/4 time, as is mentioned in that section. I think I might know what created this idea: I have seen in Pollack's article that a diagram of the refrain depicts '6/4' underneath the third measure. This '6/4' only refers to the fact that the C chord of this measure is placed in the so-called 6/4 (also known as second) inversion. It has nothing to do with the time signature of this song. Below this diagram Pollack also says: "We have the same "elusive" kind of C6/4 chord in this refrain as we saw in "Paperback Writer"." Here you can read the article yourself. I hope I have clarified my motivation for making the revision and that you could reconsider your removal of it.

Regards --Humble northener (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. Sorry about that! Didn't realise your change was based on the existing cited source, and I guessed the article might have been correct because from memory, those descending bass triplets that appear around that point sound a bit like a time-signature change. I'm glad you pointed this out because I'd meant to dig out the music and double-check but hadn't yet done so. I've reverted my revert so your correction is now back in the article. PL290 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:09/09/09
Happy Beatles Day, my friend!!! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC) (formerly User talk:76.198.234.254)


 * Yesterday, all my CDs seemed so far away... PL290 (talk)


 * Hi, PL! So far I've only listened to Please Please Me, but it truly is amazing, I mean, it blows those '87 CDs away! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Dirty Mac
Hi, PL. I think you might want to have a look at this. Worthy maybe of inclusion in the infobox's 'associated acts' section? Best, --Discographer (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've noticed it appears as an associated act in the John Lennon and The Beatles infoboxes, which is a bit surprising, isn't it? Bearing in mind the guideline at Template:Infobox_musical_artist/doc. A one-off event; and how notable to artist's career? If you feel strongly about it, might be worth raising it on the article talk pages to see what others think. PL290 (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

McCartney "Most Successful Musician"
This comment refers back to an edit made some time ago, but I re-read it and thought I would comment anyway. First of all, I think it's extraordinarily presumptuous, no matter what newspaper or record is cited, to state that a musician (any musician, for that matter) is "the most successful." True success in the arts cannot be determined solely based on sales. You could say "biggest selling artist of all time," but most successful? What does that even mean?

And to state this opinion multiple times, in the first two opening paragraphs, makes this wikipedia entry look rather unprofessional in my humble opinion. Though I too love much of McCartney's music, I don't think that an encyclopedia entry ought to be stating those kinds of claims. Jpcohen (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've thought about what you said. I also noticed your last talk page entry relates to this similar conversation about Lennon "success" vs. McCartney. I think you've got a point but you're going about it the wrong way if you remove cited material, as there are lots of editors out there who will rightly jump on that and immediately revert. Equally if you add unverifiable material to try and bring the balance you would like to see, the same editors will rightly remove it. Finally if you call a statement backed by a cited WP:RS an "opinion", other editors may think you have missed the point and may in turn miss your point. You have a point that "True success in the arts cannot be determined solely based on sales", and therefore "most successful songwriter" is not truly encyclopedic. The question is what to do about it. Possible solutions include:
 * quote the source (e.g. "was called 'most successful' by xyz)
 * qualify "success" (e.g. "commercial success" or "chart success")
 * add material, citing a WP:RS, that brings any needed balance
 * I don't have an obvious quick-fix solution. I'll keep it in mind but suggest you have a go. Someone will doubtless revert if you're not careful to avoid the above problems (and to keep the prose flowing reasonalby well in the Lead). I suggest you bring it up again on the article talk page again to seek wider involvement if you can't resolve things. I hope this helps a bit anyway. PL290 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Povey book
I wondered if you had a spare five minutes, if you could look in the Povey book and tie up any of the citation requests in The Final Cut (album) with entries from there? I'd do it myself, but Google Books has had enough of my prying, and is hiding most of the pages from me. Unless someone knows how to get around it? Once these are out of the way I can get it up on GAN. Parrot of Doom 17:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll see what I can do; it'll make a change from fixing Beatles citations! PL290 (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Certainly the items in the 're-releases' section will be there, I'm less certain that the paragraph in the 'Background' section though.  I may just have to buy the book eventually, I think I saw it for a tenner on Ebay recently.  I've got The Wall, Animals, and the post-Waters stuff to get through. Parrot of Doom 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Only managed two I'm afraid; if you get the book, its "Discography" section supports a third, "A digitally remastered CD was released in 1994 in Europe on EMI and in 1997 for the rest of the world", but the pages of that section are unnumbered in the online view. Keep up the good work on the Floyd articles! I'll add what I can from time to time. PL290 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. The Google scan isn't correct, so the auto numbering thing takes the year from the top of the page (and not the page number, which is half-scanned!) Thanks though! Parrot of Doom 20:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoid "press release"?
I see you have edited The Beatles and changed citations to "avoid press releases if possible". One such edit removed this BBC News article. That's not a press release; a press release is a self-published article that may be reprinted in a newspaper or magazine but is not subject to the usual fact-checking process of such a publisher. The article you cited is not presented as a press release and so we can assume that the usual BBC News reporting and publishing standards were met. What did I miss? &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you missed anything; my edit summary wasn't very accurate. While removing unnecessary press release citations in response to a review comment, I also took out such things as this, not because they are deprecated but because a book seems a better source than a BBC news article for "the dissolution of the partnership finally took effect in 1975". But I don't feel strongly about it if you feel the other one is preferable for some reason and want to reinstate it. PL290 (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, good. I just wanted to make sure you weren't interpreting "press release" as different than the usual meaning. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was just coming to you on the same subject, but John Cardinal beat me to it. Most of the citations you've removed are not press releases but reputable news sources. I am not sure why you think a book is a better source, especially when the news item is on line (and therefore easy for readers to verify; who knows, they might be interested to read the news item anyway), and the book isn't. It is also possible in some cases that the news item is a more original source and that the author of the book, if it is a "cuttings job" sort of book, got the information there in the first place, so I don't see that a book is per se more authoritative. If you disagree, a compromise would be to cite both. -- Alarics (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm; I see your point. Unless someone points out a reason not to then, I'll re-add those that weren't press releases, apart from one or two where I remember the book was clearly better for some reason. To avoid duplicating work I'd prefer to defer this while I finish working on the article in my sandbox, which I hope will be today. PL290 (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My opinion: professionally-published books are better than all web sites except web sites that are (A) published by professional news organizations that (B) feature stable URLs and (C) keep articles online indefinitely. There aren't many such web sites, but it sure is convenient when you run into them! I think BBC News qualifies, for example, as do sites from other news organizations. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Who knows what the future might bring, but at present the BBC, Times, Guardian, Telegraph and New York Times, and Time magazine, among others, all have their full archives on line with free access, going back 10 to 15 years and much further in some cases. These are all reliable sources, and I think such citations are worth keeping. -- Alarics (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW I think quite a few of them were BBC News. I'm open-minded about citing both the book and the website, either as two cites or possibly combined in one footnote, although I need to read up on the guidelines to see what precedent and views exist for doing either. PL290 (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's quite common to have 2 cites together like this. -- Alarics (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles discography
Hi, PL... I was wondering might you have a look at (click-on) this and see what you think. I'm asking veteran editors, such as yourself, in seeking consensus on replacing the current discography with this one, as the current one needs imrpoved and updated. Also, if I get the okay on this, I don't know how to transfer this onto the discography page other than copying it word for word. If you know how to transfer this without re-typing the entire thing, I'd appreciate your help (because that would save me about a week's worth of work)! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly a "veteran" but will be happy to take a look. Not looked yet but will do so in due course and let you know if I have any significant comments. As to transfer, just copy and paste the entire thing. PL290 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you're in discussion on the discography talk page about reworking the layout/structure which is of course where the main interested parties will be watching. Since you're inviting wider feedback, here's mine as requested. First off, a disclaimer: I have not personally worked on discography articles at all or spent much time looking at any. So what I have to say is not based on knowledge of guidelines/standards etc, just general impression. That said, my impression is that your presentation is very clear and usable. I see that compared to the existing one you've omitted album track listings, which makes sense to me since that info is available in the individual album articles. Your tabular layout makes things very clear, and the variation in colour is helpful IMO. I notice you have no Lead to speak of; see for instance David_Bowie_discography which was recently promoted to FA. But perhaps you have in mind to expand the Lead anyway. Now please re-read disclaimer! Hope this helps. Good work. PL290 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, my friend! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with The Beatles
Short answer: Use R.E.M. as a template article; that's what I intended it to be when I brought it up to FA status. Long answer: might take a bit; kind of busy these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Magical Mystery Tour edit war?
An edit war is developing in the Magical Mystery Tour article because an IP address editor insists on inserting uncited material. Please check this out. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look. PL290 (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Star quote
Even though you seem to have a custodial eye on the page already, this is just a personal head's up that I've restored the Stephens quote from the box set. Besides the reasons cited in the edit summary, I also think that an evocative quote at the conclusion of an article is (generally) a good thing for readability, when such a quote can be found. Too many Wikipedia articles tend to peter out at the end.208.120.7.152 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean up to a point, but are you sure you've read the article?!!! You say in your last edit summary that the Stephens quote you added was the only one attributed to a band member, but that's not so: there are already quotes by band members, including Stephens. There's no need to end with a cosy quote from a band member - it's an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine! IMO this quote adds nothing and I've removed it. If you want to discuss further then let's copy this conversation to the article talk page and seek wider opinion; I've worked on the article a lot but I don't WP:OWN it and others' views should be sought if you still feel this quote is really important. PL290 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My edit summary was truncated for space and thus inexpressive; what I really meant was that it's the only quote by a band member regarding the band's premise/status/history/legacy/etc. The article has two quotes from Chilton about the kind of rock 'n roll he preferred (plus the 2-word subquote "too commercial," not in reference to Big Star), one quote from Stephens about his experience in recording one album, and Ken Stringfellow on the revival tour.  There's no internal quote along the lines of "We are/were _____."
 * Also, the particular Stephens quote seemed to fit the tone of the last section. I don't have a personal affinity for this particular quote, and I'm satisfied to go along with your deletion.  But I do think it'd be preferable to end the Big Star article with something that's notable or evocative about the article's subject, Big Star.  Currently, the page ends with a Cheap Trick cover, a Replacements song, a tribute album, and the soundtracks to "Adventureland" and "That 70s Show."  As implied above, the article kind of dribbles to a conclusion instead of wrapping the subject up.  Quote, shmote.  But if some other content could be found that you consider more suitable to the purpose without striking you as fannish, that'd be nice.208.120.7.152 (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand, and I've thought the same about articles myself, as long as it can be done without losing style or tone or adding redundant material. I've moved the Borack quote to the end now - it ties in with the penultimate sentence and I think it's a great note to end on; what d'you think? PL290 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good switch. It seems effective to me.208.120.7.152 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Same editor, new IP address. I've added a counterintuitive Chilton quote to the end of the article. Take a look and see if you'd like to keep it.208.120.224.227 (talk) 06:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to include, but I think not at the end. Borack's quote is "current" (2007 book), hence, I suggest, more appropriate than a pre-second-era quote for the kind of punchline we're discussing. I've moved the Chilton one to what I think is a better place, to contrast with Buck's adulation - see what you think. PL290 (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I now see the cite is for a 2009 magazine so I'm guessing you meant to say 2009 not 1992 in the introductory text! I've therefore moved it back to the end. PL290 (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * I'm grateful to you for pushing me, in a lucid and rational manner, to raise the standard of what I originally provided, and for your kind words on the result. PL290 (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles timeline
You've edited The Beatles timeline page and discussed it on its talk page. I made a major change to it where entries are now added via a template. That should simplify maintenance, but there were some associated changes that I thought you should know about. Please see the talk page. Please make any comments on that page; I am alerting several users and I think it's best to keep discussion in one place. Thanks. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the star! Much appreciated. The timeline was a lot of work and I am very glad that at least one other person likes it. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Prince?
Hey music man, do you like Prince? The Prince article needs the attention of good editors like you, if you have any inclination. No controversy at present, it just needs attention from editors who are not just fans but also know how to write/edit and an encyclopedic article. It may not be your cup of tea, but just thought I'd ask. See you around -- — Kbob • Talk  • 21:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! To my "shame" the only interest I've taken in Prince to date is via Sinéad O'Connor's wonderfully passionate cover of his Nothing Compares 2 U, but I'll keep it in mind. Fandom is not a prerequisite for editing, and anyway I might learn something that gets me interested in his music. I like all sorts of music; do you recommend Prince? PL290 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I liked Prince in his day, but don't consider myself a fan. That is the problem actually with the Prince article. It is being edited solely by fans, or so it appears. So if you are middle of the road on him you would be a good contributor there. I just started there. I like editing bios more than music articles. Anyway, good to meet you. Look forward to seeing you around. PS. loved the Sinead cover even more than the original version -- — Kbob • Talk  • 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations
You just brought the second-most-viewed article on the English-speaking world's premier information resource to FA status. Not bloody bad. DocKino (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 04:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, PL! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply, to whom it may concern
We all know the contribution made by so many to get the article to this point. I was profoundly moved by the dedication shown by FAC reviewers and their personal commitment at key moments that built the momentum of the review. Congratulations and thanks to all concerned. PL290 (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you a robot?
Looking at your amazing work at The Beatles, systematic dab cleanup at Pere, and, of course, your "real name", I see no other possible alternative. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * :) I wonder... that would explain the frequency with which I resonate with the Gm opening strains of Wish You Were Here... not to mention the later ones... PL290 (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles references
Not sure where you are going with this. I had recommended using harvnb, but sfn is more appropriate for the shortened footnote style. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that is really cool&mdash;reduced markup and automatic combining of duplicate cites. No more ref names! Where I'm at at the moment is giving it a couple of days to allow any other editors to react on the article talk page before making the change. It seems likely to be easiest to add all the works to References in a first pass, and then make a number of further passes to update the cites. Thanks for this further refinement. PL290 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for jumping in. sfn does look cool. My comment on the Beatles talk page about more templates was referring to the change from plain text ("Lewison (1988), p. 200.") to a template call (""), but I have done some more reading--and editing--and I now think harvnb has benefits that outweigh the extra syntax to use it. sfn seems even better.


 * I am willing to do the editing implement sfn. However... Some issues I discovered while trying to implement harvnb elsewhere seem to also apply to sfn. harvnb works very well for books and many other source types, some cite web references are problematic. They lack an author name, for example, or a date, or both. There are solutions to those problems, but when converting them, you wind up with something that is harder to maintain. Specifically, you have to add the harvnb or sfn citation and a cite web entry below. The extra work to add the reference below is typically not leveraged by subsequent references to the same site, which contrasts with books where we often reference different pages, i.e., multiple harvnb/sfn references to a single cite book entry. Is it advisable to use harvnb/sfn for books and the like, but use only cite web for the web evidence? If not, can one of you point me to an example page that uses harvnb or sfn and has a few web sources? I did review the Chaco Culture National Historical Park example that Gadget85 recommend and it was helpful, but it only has a couple web sources. For one of them, the page itself doesn't have a date that I could see, but the citation to it has a year entry. Perhaps the page changed since the citation was added. Anyway, the double entry requirement and missing dates are two issues that I am wrestling with. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank for being willing to do the editing! Remember Jwy said he may be able to help too if needed. I've played with it briefly in my sandbox to try and get a feel for what it will take, and it seems to me that building up a complete References section first will be a good approach, as the cites can then be done in stages by section edit. I was considering what to do about the dates too; we should probably take it back to the article talk page but maybe it will help that if we can identify a suggested way first. I wonder what precedents there are for interpreting the date of an undated web article. The viewing date is one possibility, since the publisher (website) is seen to be publishing in the cited form on that date. Another possibility, aligning with the current omission of date, is to state "n.d." or suchlike. Complicating matters slightly is the fact that as with books, there will be more than one web source by an author for this date (for instance, I think there's more than one undated Unterberger review) so we could end up with 2009a, 2009b, but I'm not sure about n.d.(a) and n.d.(b). The other aspect you mention, the overhead of adding both a cite and a reference, is inseparable from this approach of using only short footnotes, isn't it? I think it's worth it for the neatness and uniformity it achieves in the notes, and the completeness of the References section is another plus. PL290 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it appears that my update to the sfn documentation was timely. Check the section on Anchors and IDs for some simple resolutions— issues that apply to harvnb as well. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To tackle a short article as practice, I updated "Every Little Thing" to use sfn. Overall, I really like how it works, but the Unterberger reference there is a good example of what I was trying to describe above. There is no date associated with the review and that leaves a non-specific entry ("6. ^ a b Unterberger") in the Notes section. It links to the full cite web entry in the References section. All the citation linking works, and the Notes section is as clean as Paul's grandfather, but if someone adds another reference to some other undated review by Unterberger, it would take some careful use of the templates to make the links work. That's a minor issue. What bothers me is, in a moderate to long article with lots of web sources, there are going to be a lot of entries like the Unterberger entry in "Every Little Thing". That effectively puts a layer between the footnote number and the citation details that is more of a barrier than with book sources, for example.


 * Is it acceptable/advisable to use loc with sfn like this: ? I know I can make the links work, the issue is really more about style and convention.


 * I'd really like to see a page that has web references similar to The Beatles to get a feel for what others have done in similar situations. The pages I have found so far show only the easy cases where the author name (or equivalent) and year of publication are available. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a matter of establishing a convention, as you say. Let's see if Gadget850 has any further input on this point, and/or an example of it in use on a similar page, before we try and do that. PL290 (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's a danger of falling between two stools if we consider introducing descriptive identifiers such as "Review of "Every Little Thing" in short footnotes. A year is best if we can justify one. What are the thoughts on my reasoning for using the viewing date? As a variation on that, how about "accessed 2009"? This in turn would give "accessed 2009a", "accessed 2009b". PL290 (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I wasn't confortable with the Review of "Every Little Thing" suggestion (even though I made it) so let's drop that. Using the accessed date will probably be OK. I'm only lukewarm because of some off-wiki work I do with citations where others would complain that citations are supposed to describe the source, and an accessdate is less about the source than it is about our use of it. Still, I think it's the best idea presented so far. As you explained, we'll get a few "accessed 2009a", "accessed 2009b", cases.

I've had the opportunity to use sfn a few times now. I discovered that cite album-notes didn't support Harvard notations so I fixed that. I'm confident I can start editing the article, and if Jwy or anyone else wants to jump in, that's fine. I tend to do edits like this using regular expression search and replace, and its usually easier and faster for me to do a single author, or a single type of citation, rather than edit sections of the article. We'll see how that works out in terms of edit conflicts. I'll will certainly do more edits with shorter elapsed times than the citation cleanup I attempted a few nights ago. I probably won't start until this evening, my time (UTC-5) but I may wait until I find a quiet time in terms of edits by others.

If you think I should hold off because we need more discussion, let me know. At very least, I think we could change the book citations to sfn right now without introducing any major visible change to the article, and so that's not controversial. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to go. I don't think we need any more discussion. PL290 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * PL290, I changed Unterberger to sfn today. 6 reviews of his were mentioned, all undated. One was co-authored, so that was relatively easy . For the others, I used a variation of the "n.d." method you proposed above combined with the method of using alpha codes for multiple publications in the same year: . I used "n.d.(a)" for his first undated source, "n.d.(b)" for his second, etc. I think it works reasonably well, but before I tackle any more of the same, let me know what you think. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did mention "n.d." but now I see it I'm not convinced. I'll try out something in my sandbox and reply further shortly. PL290 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since "2009a" isn't really a year, how about giving these undated web refs a year of "1", "2", "3" etc. These will then show in both the footnote and the ref, which is consistent with the others, and it stops people having to wonder what "n.d." means. See User:PL290/Sandbox/sfn (and be my guest to edit it if we need to try further ideas there). What d'you think? PL290 (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the Unterberger/allmusic pages have a copyright of 2009 at the bottom of the page. The usual standard is to add an alpha suffix to the year. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That supports the other idea we discussed, i.e. use the access date. What do you think, John? That sounds like the best thing to me, if it's acceptable to you, to just use the copyright date. That's the date the publisher is attaching to the material being viewed at the point when the citation is recorded. So we would just have 2009a, 2009b and so on, with no extra words or anything. Also I've tried out a couple of variations in my sandbox using other formats for Unterberger b and c (see edit summaries for explanation). Thanks for all the work so far. Let me know what you think of all this. PL290 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My off-wiki work with citations would not use the accessdate or copyright date that way, but as long as there's consensus to do it, that's fine with me. I'll change them if they aren't changed already. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see you've now finished&mdash;it looks fab! As the icing on the cake, I've tweaked colwidth to get 4 cols. Do you like the effect? PL290 (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think it looks good, too, and yes, given the short notes, the Notes columns can be thinner. 22em seems to work well.

How likely is it that other editors will be able to cite their sources correctly in an article that uses short footnotes ala The Beatles? In general, citing sources properly takes more attention to detail than some editors are willing to devote to that part of the article, and when using short footnotes as we've done in The Beatles, there are two additional barriers compared to the way most articles are sourced.


 * 1) With short footnotes, no matter which method we use to implement them, an editor has to make two related edits for any new source, one in the body of the article and one in the References section.
 * 2) Some entries in the References section require manually-entered  entries, such as , and the editor has to know how to determine the value to use for the parameter.

For important articles like The Beatles, there will probably always be a "citation wonk" editor around to adjust citations. For other articles, I am not sure that will always happen. Just musing... no dire need for you to reply. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's really an issue; any markup or citation convention takes some getting used to, and anyone who's done that in the first place editing WP articles shouldn't really have a problem with this one. Perhaps Gadget850 would welcome it if you were to consider letting others benefit from your experience by expanding the note at sfn/doc with your recommendations about determining the ref parameter, including an example or two. PL290 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've converted a bunch of articles to use sfn. Along the way, I created SfnRef which simplifies the coding for the ref parameter. If you have New York Times then you'd specify ref for the full citation in the References section. I updated sfn/doc to mention SfnRef. I may expand that doc further. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You're obviously on the case already--noticed you were tackling further articles but hadn't seen the new template and updated doc. Looks useful. PL290 (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Beatles opening sentence
PL, I've replied to your latest post regarding a possible alteration of the opening sentence, and I look forward to your reply. But this I wanted to say to you. You wrote: ''There was a move, which I sort of championed in a number of articles at one point, to "establish notability in first sentence per WP:LEAD". Since that time, my interpretation of that guideline in this way has been questioned more than once elsewhere.''. PL, I encourage you to not abandon that idea. Is it questioned by others? Absolutely, but that's exactly because it is a matter that is evolving. Don't let it bother you that not everyone gets it, just be polite, make your points on the talk page, and watch consensus evolve. It will happen, it is happening, but it's almost geologic in its time scale.

PL, there are a couple of other issues in which I have been involved as a discussant where I have seen consensus move over the course of years, simply because good editors on both sides of the issues kept talking about it. As long as we assume good faith on everyone's part, and keep talking, we are serving the best interests of the encyclopedia. I encourage you to continue to promote notability in the first sentence, or at least, establish uniqueness in the first sentence. It isn't always possible, but we need to remember that there are tens of thousands of readers out there who do not possess the background information that we may have on a subject, and if they have to wait a couple of paragraphs to find what they're looking for, they may not make it. Can you imagine an article that began, Barack Obama is an Illinois politician who was born in 1961.? But that's the equivalent of writing, The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. It's just not doing the reader appropriate service.

I'm glad to see that you're a thoughtful editor, as evidenced by the fact that you're open to consideration of both sides of the issue. I look forward to seeing more of you in the future. Un sch  ool  19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insightful feedback! I take it you saw Indopug's observation higher up in the discussion; he perceives the Lead as a little too much of a hagiography. We're exploring the possibility of making this kind of change to address that, should there be agreement that it's indeed the case. I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing the first sentence's role in the terms you're now echoing. Let's see what others say&mdash;I think between the two of us with that latest exchange we've given them something to react to one way or the other. PL290 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a challenge...
Now you've got the Beatles buffed and polished... what about The King (hehehe) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... a challenge indeed: a primary editor's hitcount of 2.8K&mdash;out of his 5K total&mdash;and a son-of article 7 months in the oven with 500+ of its own. Could be more than one king here ... I won't rule anything out, but don't hold your breath! PL290 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that would be a challenge, PL. I've also thought about you fixing Elvis up to FA. If anybody can do this, it's you! If you do this, I'll work on the discography section in helping you out, though I wouldn't colorise the tables like I did with The Beatles discography, but I would include the entire UK discography in that, and I would (gulp!) change the existing non-wikitables to wiki ones. You would have to help me finish The Supremes timeline with John Cardinal first, if that's okay? Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, ah, I just had a look at his discography.. I didn't know it was already fixed up! Well, that took care of that! I could still use your help on The Supremes timeline, anyway! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If there's anything I can add, I will. I don't have anything particular on them though. Needs refs... PL290 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Belated thank you
I meant to leave this for you last week but forgot after I finished promoting/archiving. It is always a pleasant surprise to read through FAC and find a nomination like that for The Beatles. I'll be holding this one up as a shining example of what nominators and reviewers should do. Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for this, and for all the hard work you and the rest of the FAC crew do to keep the vital processes working! I aim to try and do some more reviewing when I get the chance; just haven't been able to devote much time to it yet. PL290 (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Had to "SMiLE"
I got a chuckle out of your poll intro comments, the whole bit that includes "comparing them with Brian Wilson as a person or The Beach Boys as a group or whatever it is." Well done, and very funny. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC review feedback
I certainly don't think anyone could fault how you've dealt with the substance of the issues you've raised. But you've also asked for feedback relative to future "effectiveness". I have three observations concerning the psychology of the, shall we say, other-than-supportive FAC review; as in all matters Wikipedian, the psychological has a very practical impact on effectiveness. Before I continue, let me say that I'm flattered that you've asked me for feedback--the advice I offer is based on a history that is far from flawless. In other words, I hope we can both profit from the articulation of the following:

(1) I think it is always helpful to say something positive at the start. Whenever I can foresee getting significantly involved either with the current nomination or a subsequent one, I try to do this as a matter of course--I believe it makes a particular difference when the nominated article has major problems. The positive comment doesn't even have to be about the article itself. Let's take The Kinks nomination. This article arrived at FAC with prose well below GA standards, let alone FA. It didn't seem too bad otherwise, but hardly inspired anything congratulatory. So I start by saying what I can: "My favorite British Invasion band." I follow that with a very blunt assessment of the article's glaring deficiency: "Needs a serious copyedit--does not meet 1a standard at this point." But this means that both (a) my very first comment is positive, and (b) among my earliest wave of comments, the most personal--in terms of tone and phrasing--is positive. The "problem" comes up second and in entirely impersonal terms.

Let's compare your start with the MXE nom. There's a direct quote, and then your initial comment: "I'm not really sure about that!" You and I know that's rather mildly phrased in objective terms, but that's not how it plays psychologically. Your initial comment is negative, and the psychological effect of that is compounded by the personal tone and phrasing. While the nominator did not overreact initially, a certain first impression was made, a seed interpretable (however irrationally) as personally antagonistic was planted. I can't say I'm shocked that the tenor of the discussion ultimately deteriorated.

(2) No matter how dense the nominator, don't indulge in an outburst. What I have in mind here is your comment that includes the line "The mind boggles on this point!" Indeed it does, but it is of no help to say so. Reread your comment there without that line--it's actually much more effective in the absence of that phrase, and you appear much more focused and in control. And, as the greatest philosopher in the English language observed, only shallow people don't judge by appearances.

If you need to underscore the point, do it calmly: "The current phrasing leaves matters unclear." If circumstances indicate that you need to drive the point home, do it with a cool blade: "The current phrasing is incoherent." That is quieter and more powerful--you are more in control, more effective, when you express yourself that way. Always remember, it doesn't require an explicit personal comment about the other party to personalize the issue. "The mind boggles!" is your mind...which immediately gets interpreted as opposed to the nominator's mind. Conflict!! The more impersonal you can keep the phrasing when it comes to problems, the more the focus tends to stay on the content that wants fixing.

Again, I'll return to The Kinks nomination as a model: After the need to solicit an outside copyeditor was firmly impressed upon the nominator, he got one, who brought the article within striking range of GA standard. Upon which the nominator declared, "I think we can safely say this article meets all FA criteria now." Did I want to burst out with "No! That's not safe to say at all!!"? Yes, of course I did. But I didn't. As a result, the nominator and I currently have a productive working relationship. I believe we can continue to improve the article during this nom; ease it toward the archiving it will still deserve; motivate the nominator to secure a peer review and second copyedit during downtime; and then bring it back for a second nom, when it will be close enough to warrant a full-on press to FA status. Well, we'll see...

(3) If the nominator happens to get really dense, really silly, downright stupid (or even belligerent), nonetheless, resist the temptation to lecture. This is for one's own good, more than anything. I have in mind here the beginning of your last comment: "Fixable? Within the FAC process it would be pointless for me to make objections that weren't fixable!" Now, by this point, the interaction has obviously deteriorated, and the nominator has been behaving childishly. When the situation turns silly, it drains our not-unlimited energy to continue investing serious emotion in it. How much better would you feel if you started off with something less perturbed, more removed and amused, such as this: "Fixable, yes. Fixed, no." Mastering how we express ourselves makes a real difference to our state of mind, which in turn makes it easier to express ourselves more effectively (yes, positive feedback loop). And we've got better things to get worked up about than major Sladists, right? I mean, cum on.

Best regards, DocKino (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm most grateful for this response. I knew you were someone who could illuminate matters in just this way, and I'm delighted that you were willing to do so and able to devote such attention to it. I've learned a lot from reading this. I shall value and reread these words and I know they'll help me to become more effective as I go forward in my own no doubt far from flawless future. Thank you very much. PL290 (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Billboard
Hi, PL ...Okay, well according to US Billboard, the top album of the decade is 1, by The Beatles, with 11.5 million sales. The Beatles themselves are the number-two best-selling artist of the 2000s decade, after M&M. I thought I'd bring this to your attention if you might consider placing this in The Beatles article. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. The Beatles sales were 30 million, M&M's were 32.2 million. Source: Billboard. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Short footnotes
PL290, check this out. I suggest you use it from FF3; I developed it under FF2 and FF3 and I use it solely from FF3. I did only a quick smoke test under IE8.

I can not guarantee it will work flawlessly for you, but it's been a big help to me. Then again, I can change it if/when something happens that I don't like. There's a help page; I highly recommend that you click the "Instructions" link and read it. &mdash; John Cardinal (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, thanks, I'll take a look. PL290 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

DSotM
My apologies if I came across as a bit of a cunt there. I'm making no excuses but I've been a bit stressed lately, and could certainly have worded my reply in a more constructive manner. There's nothing personal about my response. I'm going to have a coffee, some bacon, and try and chill out for a bit. Please do continue to contribute to the discussion. Parrot of Doom 21:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries! Sorry to hear you've been stressed. I didn't think your response was too bad, but it seemed a little unconsidered regarding the overall point I'm trying to make, so thanks for letting me know that was a factor. Try beer instead of coffee! (But maybe that doesn't suit the time of day wherever you are.) :) PL290 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so nice about it. I'm not sure I deserve it, my tongue seems to be quite caustic of late. Parrot of Doom 23:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You made a mistake
On pages 117 and 118 of Clayton & Heard's book, it partly reads:
 * So when we shot the show, I took camera two and I said, 'Dolly into a chest shot and stay there.' And for that entire six minutes we only saw Elvis from his chest to his head. We never revealed the rest of him, nor did anyone ever see this 'implement' between his legs. And I'll tell you a secret: it wasn't there.

This quote is related to the Sullivan show, not to the clips of the Allen and Berle shows that Sullivan and Lewis had viewed long before they shot the Sullivan show. This means that the additional information that “Lewis saw nothing” is in the wrong place. Onefortyone (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out--thanks. PL290 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Big Star and Gillian Welch
Hello, first thanks for your excellent work on the Big Star article. I created the September Gurls and Thirteen articles, so obviously I'm a fan. It's great to see it go to wp:FA, and I hope some people were introduced to the band through the article and felt the same way I did when I first heard September Gurls.

Anyway, I'm sort of new to the whole FA process, but I just totally rewrote the Gillian Welch article, and I was wondering if you could take a look. First I'm going for GA but I think this may be a good one to try for my first GA later. No problem if you don't have the time to check it out. Her music is a bit of departure from power-pop too :)

--Omarcheeseboro (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Short footnotes for Presley?
Any interest in using short footnotes on Elvis Presley? If so, let me know and I'll give it a go. We'd probably need the approval of the other editors driving the article to FAC. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've been toying with the idea but haven't had a chance to take it beyond that. Personally I'm in favour, yes--I think it's a real plus in tidying up the notes and removing clutter from the main text. The article currently uses the typical hybrid of short and long, with probably the majority already short (albeit formatted the old way). Are you daunted by the fact that References doesn't currently use cite templates, or is that something you already take in your stride in your approach where you've done this elsewhere? DocKino is the other editor currently working heavily on the article, so I would ask that for this exercise we defer to him timewise. But I think a lull of sorts may now have been reached. PL290 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The lack of citation templates will definitely add to the work, but it shouldn't be too bad. Do you mind clearing it with DocKino? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, feel free to proceed (just left a message on JC's Talk to the same effect). DocKino (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice mile stone
...congrats ..keep up the good work!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My "second birthday"! How kind. Thank you. PL290 (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Kinks
Well, I am doing the best I can, However, my edits might seem impulsive, but I think they are for the best for the article. I moved the band members on a seperate article and trimmed the intro into more humanely version. I don't know what are you expecting from me. Discuss every little change? No, I don't think it is needed. I think the article looks better than ever, but some more work can be done on the main sections. If you want something else to tell me, you are welcome and it is not intrusive.
 * Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are sorry or it saddens you? LOL :))))
 * Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The King Is Crowned
Wow. Was not at all certain that was going to happen. Given the, um, size of the achievement, a case of brew is in order. Congratulations--or, as Elvis's great-great-granny would surely have said, mazel tov! DocKino (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow indeed. Feels like I've just been sprung outta jail. Now, where can I find a nice cool beer...? Found one! Many thanks for all your hard effort. Rikstar  409  09:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well done. I finally got round to reviewing (and massaging) it at the last after being snowed under. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations are in order, what more can I say, but thank you, to you and DocKino and others for your efforts in making this a FA article.--Jaye9 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pl290, DocKino, and Rikstar: Well done! — John Cardinal (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I second that. Congratulations to all of you! - I.M.S. (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks/apology/thanks
thanks for weighing in on that Talk:Pop music question, and apologies for stepping on your indentation. i've always just indented every post by one more : than the preceding post, to create a more visible boundary between posts, but i've now learned (from WP:Talk#Indentation) that that's not actually the Wikipedia Way. so thanks for the education. 8) Sssoul (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, and you're welcome, on all counts! PL290 (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space
Hey there PL290, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:PL290/Sandbox/subpage. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of files removed today here.


 * Shut off the bot here.


 * Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Say Say Say
Hey there. I noticed that you brought The Beatles to FA (well done!), and was wondering if you have access to any extra information/book sources regarding the song "Say Say Say", as I am hoping to take it to FA status. I'm mainly looking for information on the recording and composition aspects of the song, though any other details would be appreciated as well. Thanks.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't I'm afraid. It'll be a case of Google, libraries and finally bookshops to find sources with specific information about that song. Good luck. PL290 (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul McCartney page
Do you agree with the term "reponsible for" versus written/co-written, as Guinness uses?

Also, do you think Harrison's song "For You Blue" should be used to get Paul's total up to 31? GabeMc (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's after midnight here now but I'll try and have a look in the morning, and if I can add anything constructive to the article talk page I'll do so. I'm concerned that last time I looked (which was a few hours ago) I got the impression that the tone of your comments was belligerent, provocative and personal. I don't know whether that's intentional; however, I feel it's unlikely to be productive, and likely to antagonize more and more editors. It will be more effective if editors can simply make what improvements they can to each article in its own right, instead of comparing Lennon and McCartney and blaming other editors for perceived shortcomings (let alone accusing them of personal bias, or demonstrating the same). No article is perfect, and some articles are further from it than others. We make what improvements we can to each one as we go, and try, even under provocation, to work in as neutral and civil a manner as possible with other editors on article talk pages to achieve that. Anyway, I'll try and have a look tomorrow&mdash;let me know if you have any more queries. PL290 (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be careful to avoid negativity, I do not intend to be "belligerent, provocative and personal", I promise, I don't want it really I don't, I just wanna help make the pages better. In my defense, I was challenged to "a fight" by John Cardinal (check my talk page) he went on to say:

"You apparently can't read", "you have horrible trouble figuring out wikitext", "see clumsy attempt to quote me above and your apparent inability to indent comments", "you have a poor command of vocabulary", " Other than that, your a good editor. ", "was going to be micro-analyzed by some dipstick", "you are a new editor who can't seem to make a single, useful contribution to WP."

I assert that just as many "belligerent, provocative and personal" comments have been made toward me, but I want to move on.

It just seemed like EVERY edit I made was being arbitrarilly reverted based on the fact that I made the edit, not basecd on the content. Also, there seems to be some page ownership at PM, which does not help the article evolve. GabeMc (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your objective and thoughtful replies. GabeMc (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the problems with the page are mostly fixed, but I am afraid my edits will be subjects to a blanket revert. GabeMc (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I know you only want to improve the pages, you didn't set out to be belligerent, and you want to move on. I'm not going to continue this "micro-analysis" either&mdash;it's up to you to make what you will of your interactions here&mdash;but since you're new and are having these issues I will say this before I leave it with you, and I hope this is helpful. I respect John Cardinal but I am not simply siding with him&mdash;please receive this as an independent, third-party view of what developed.
 * As a newcomer, you got off to a bad start by making a lot of assertions, many of which amounted to criticism of other editors while also completely missing the point about certain WP guidelines and policies. (Nothing too surprising, in short.)
 * John Cardinal evidently decided to assume good faith about your intentions and began to give you some fairly forthright and very sound advice. For a while you appeared extremely happy to receive it, but who knows, perhaps your pride was dented, because you suddenly started to question and criticize him on article talk pages.
 * In my opinion, you were not "challenged to a fight" by John Cardinal. Rather, he was pointing out that you appeared to be the one challenging him to a fight. (I pointed this out on your talk page, along with the fact that I could see his reasons for thinking that.)
 * Under provocation from you on article talk pages, he did eventually respond inappropriately, which he has acknowledged. For your part, you started to apologize to him, but then in the same breath carried right on criticizing him, loftily citing the WP Pillars, and afterwards made numerous further inappropriate, personal comments on article talk pages, all in all undermining the sincerity of your apology. Don't justify and perpetuate incivility in terms of what you see others doing, and don't underestimate the value of a genuine apology where due; see specific details on these points at WP:CIVIL.

Regarding page ownership, that's not what's going on at all. What you're seeing is editors reverting or amending inappropriate edits. That may seem offensive to you, but it's part of normal life on WP, and you're a newcomer so it's only natural that your edits may miss the point about some things at first. Look carefully at edit summaries: usually the reason for a revert will be explained to you there. If not, take it up with the editor concerned, assuming good faith, and who knows, you may both learn something new.

Regarding saying McCartney is "responsible for" x number of #1 hits, it's not really encyclopedic. It would have been better to get rid of the phrase than clone it to the Lennon article just to say Lennon was "responsible for" a lot too. I made a suggestion about it on the McCartney talk page. PL290 (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good advice all, thank you, I will do my best to take it, and to put it into practice. BTW, I did try to change 'responsible", that's one of the things that kept getting reverted by Cardinal cause he said it was an agreed upon term. I will correct my noobish behavior. GabeMc (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I converted the PM references list for use with Sfn, but I must have left a code out because at the bottom of the page it has "Cite error: There are tags on this page, but the references will not show without a tag." Can you help please? ~


 * Fixed&mdash;you just had one "Sfn" in the references themselves, instead of "SfnRef". BTW for performance reasons, when using Sfn, ref=harv is normally preferable; ref=SfnRef is for special cases--see its documentation at SfnRef for details, and see John Lennon for examples. PL290 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So to clarify, the ref= should be harv for books, and SfnRef for articles and websites? GabeMc (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's to do with whether the cited work has author(s) and year. If it has those two things, ref=harv is suitable. If not, that's when you have to define your own ID, which SfnRef helps with. You can find onward links to more about harv at cite book or cite web for example, but it gets a bit confusing since you then get examples using a number of other citation templates. The basic thing is that if there's an author and a date (which there mostly is), ref=harv will work (and will give faster page loads than SfnRef). PL290 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Beatles-releated (to be) featured articles
Hi, PL... Sometime ago, I had an idea for a new timeline about record labels. Originally, it was going to be my intention to have both you and Doc Kino turn this into an FA article. Then I thought, about our old friend Andre, well, let's not let him feel bad by leaving him "out". So, on Cardinal's talk page I wrote about this timeline I want(ed) to do, and decided on having him help us out with this (one should not judge: for I have sinned, though I am sorry!). Turns out after some reseaerch, that their's more record companies in the world than Elvis Presley songs! You understand so far? Now, I've decided altogether not to do this since both Steelbeard1 and John Cardinal know it's going to be so very much work. Anyway, what I'm trying to get at, is if might you and Doc Kino begin collaborating again (in tamdem, you two are a remarkable team) on turning John, Paul, George and Ringo into FA-class articles, as well as George Martin, and maybe Stuart and Pete, please. Also, you never respond to my messages... how come? Please respond. Thanks, PL! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right, DocKino and I have enjoyed some great partnerships on articles, and I've no doubt it will continue to happen. It all depends on the alignment of the planets, you know, that kind of thing, what articles each person's motivated to work on at the time. Speaking of which, true to form, you seem to have some grand plans. Me, I prefer to just take it slowly and I think it will just be a case of wait and see what articles I 'm drawn to. Haven't seen much of Andrew recently, but I will always treasure his Bletchley Park analogy produced during the 909 adventure. Anyway, I remember you got quite motivated about the Beatles discography at one point, then you seemed to run into friction about colours and suchlike, and your plan got shelved, it seems, after that first FL attempt. Why don't you take a fresh look at that, and try and understand what it is other editors want from the article. I think it was moving too fast for some editors, and some big changes weren't accepted by them all, but if you can work with them and find some common ground, maybe you can take it to FL status. It's on my watchlist so I'll contribute if I'm able to at any point. PL290 (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PL. You're a good person. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Flaming Joel-wiki

 * Wow! I think that's flaming groovy--especially now I've understood it! Thank you! PL290 (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style discussion
I've moved the MOS structure discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Structure. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The lone subsection
This is an intriguing bit of minutiae. I realize that I am mildly opposed to enforcement of the principle. I also admit that the real-world examples probably weigh against me. Specifically, I looked at my old hard-copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica and discovered that it abides by the principle. On the other hand, I looked at the detailed TOCs with which each chapter of the Chicago Manual of Style begins, and I see that they regularly include lone sub-subsections.

I recall that you raised this point with film noir, and I was able to come up with terse, appropriate, and nonredundant headers. I suppose I would think of it that way, then: that (a) the principle is worth keeping in mind, and (b) two good, clear subsection headers are generally preferable to one, but (c) it shouldn't be forced.—DCGeist (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RETAIN
means precisely what it says: that the variety of English which has prevailed at a given article through its entire history shall be retained. I would have thought from this discussion that you would realise that your good intentions and your interpretation of WP:COMMONALITY were both mistaken. Please stop making unnecessary changes to the varieties of English at articles, such as the one you made here. Thank you.  MPFC 1969  15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed the point. WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN relate to "varieties of English"; there is no "varieties of English" issue here, because all the words in question already used British English spellings prior to your change. You also appear to have forgotten that you, in fact, are the one initiating an unnecessary change, not me. It's a divisive change, as I explained in my edit summary. That's why I reverted it. Many words in British English have more than one acceptable spelling, and you have made a quite unnecessary change from one British English spelling to another. As you know from the discussion you cite above (not all of which could seriously be considered a rational one which respects WP guidelines), I am not prepared to edit-war over this, but I urge you to reconsider your attitude to others in our global community. Please try to find opportunities for commonality instead of opportunities to insist on British-only spellings. I would also ask you to refrain from your uncivil reactions, which in this discussion have so far included:
 * Claiming that another user is "making unnecessary changes", when in fact you are the one initiating a change (which has been pointed out to be problematic in edit summaries);
 * Re-imposing your reverted edit using an edit summary which completely ignores a central point made in the reverting edit summary.
 * By the way, I can't help wondering: don't I know you from somewhere? You seem to know your way around pretty well for someone who's only been here six weeks, with 200-odd edits. Already a barnstar for anti-vandalism work; already using Twinkle; already aware of the content of archived discussions from article talk pages; edit-warring on your own user talk page, characterizing others's comments there as "vandalism" and reverting them; leaving assertive and disingenuous messages like the above on user talk pages; ... impressive (or perhaps Radiopathy). PL290 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're very perceptive, but that doesn't excuse your misinterpretation of policy, nor does it permit you to be uncivil towards another editor while claiming that its that editor who's being uncivil.  MPFC  1969  17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild family
Hi there Pl290. Thanks for helping to help battle the edit warriors. The IP you reverted earlier came back and reverted a 2nd time without discussion in talk. I have reverted him. Just FYI so yu can help keep an eye in him, as it's likely he will return. Thanks :) Vexorg (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid error with AWB
Thanks The problem is not with AWB, but with me. I had a few other such problems which I reverted (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alphaville:_The_Singles_Collection&diff=prev&oldid=357860620 ) before I got all of my rules down correctly. I appreciate the heads-up. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon
Did he die at 11:07? Source? If true, I need to correct another article that says 11:15. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Source is given in the article--see cite next to 11:07. PL290 (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion
Hi PL290,

You redacted my contribution without first reading the ACTUAL source material I provided. Atleast you could have not deleted the source, which is based on leading news sources Reuters, CNBC, Times.co.uk. Please correct the entries I made. Using stupid tool to clear "work in action" is little bit too much. Before I correct, I would like to give you a chance to correct, if you have done inadvertantly. No personal insult is intended. Thanks.. (76.x.y.z) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.138.245 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 May 2010


 * Sorry&mdash;I made a mistake. At a quick glance, I mistook your edit for vandalism. For future reference, your edit looked like vandalism because there was no edit summary, unexplained removal of references, and introduction of spelling/grammar errors ("a extremely large-scale"). On reading your message here, I attempted to undo my revert, but subsequent edits now make that impossible. As it was a minor change, it's probably simplest if you reapply it to your satisfaction. Sorry again. PL290 (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)