Talk:John Lennon/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Fair use rationale for Image:JLENN01.jpg

Image:JLENN01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Political Associations

Lennon was known to have, later in life, some association with the radical left (his lines "imagine no possessions... imagine all the people, sharing all the world" clearly show idealistic communist sympathies, as well). The Socialist Workers Party in England courted him, though he never actually joined. I wish I knew it well enough to add a section. But if anyone else does, I encourage you to add it. --MQDuck 03:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe under "Political activism"? I think that if you can cite (reliably) the instance of the courting by the SWP of Liverpool, and Lennon's reaction, then it would be usable. If you cannot cite it, you cannot include it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I've again re-archived the tendentious discussion. It started out being about the provenance of a citation since replaced in the article, and evolved (or rather devolved) somewhat after that. As well, the quote from Ono released to the public has some sources as being through Geffen and others non-attributed. In order to avoid ruffling any firther feathers, the attribution to Geffen was removed. I think that fairly sums up the discussion was archived (those parts that actually dealt with the article, that is). Let's move on. I offer my apologies to the others outside the discussion for allowing the argument to escalate. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lennon is B-class

This is a big article that needs quite a few references. How long has this article been B-class? It's a scandal. Look at the big picture and think about elevating John to GA. The Beatles, McCartney, Epstein, Martin, The Beatles' assistants and family members are already there (two more are up for a GA right now) - so why not him? --andreasegde (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article clearly meats the B-Class criteria. As for GA, why don't you nominate it? —Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it needs quite a few references, and is over 101,202 bytes. I would go through it, but I'm not going to get into any wars about it. --andreasegde (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Death

Cleaned up this section a little bit. Got thoroughly disgusted doing so, I might add. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean - a while ago I was working on this page and re-read the NYTimes articles that ran after the murder to get the details right - I said then that I would never read those again, as it was just as painful 25+ years after the fact as it had been the first time I read them, in 1980. Tvoz |talk 04:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I even changed the ending for a bit. Hotcop2 (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor detail: The article says six shots were fired. The Charter Arms revolver used (the Undercover model) holds five rounds. Percy Smogg (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Perdomo and Pedermo are both given as the door-man's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.0 (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) Perdomo seems to be the commonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you change it? Sign in, and you can... --andreasegde (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire

Surely his receipt of a MBE membership to the Order merits some coverage? 121.210.212.4 Rotovia (talk)

Should MBE be takin off of his name because he returned it to the queen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.73.201 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I kind of agree with this, but one would have to ask an expert like Vera, Chuck & Dave, as he was given The George Medal. --andreasegde (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Early years

These years should be drastically cut back, as lots of the information is now in the Mimi Smith and Julia Lennon articles. I will now cut a little, and wait for the avalanche... :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work on the early years. --andreasegde (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No Dick Lester and the film in Spain? ¿Qué está sucediendo? --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction doesn't read well. I suggest a rewrite, especially for:

"Lennon revealed his rebellious nature and irreverent wit on television, in films such as A Hard Day's Night (1964), in books such as In His Own Write, and in press conferences and interviews. He channelled his fame and penchant for controversy into his work as a peace activist, artist, and author."

I will attempt one later and I encourage others to do the same.

The freddinator (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

GA (again)

Take a look [at this]. John should be next, but it will take a team effort. McCartney got a GA by the same method. Is anybody willing to come on board for references and copy-editing? --andreasegde (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

J.L.'s article is a very touchy situation. McCartney's would be easier to get a GA because he's still alive (I think...) therefore, Paul will be a constant work in progress until that time. This article needs a small team to do the final touch-ups and then it should be locked down. Mister ricochet (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

McCartney's article is already a GA. --andreasegde (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I know Paul has a GA. I think you didn't understand my wording. That's what I get for growing up in Brooklyn, NY. Mister ricochet (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your humour :) Ask Tvoz - she's a "Nu Yoiker" as well. My answer was probably a result of me coming from The land where men are men, and so are the women. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. The land where men are men, and so are the women. Must be great to be a homosexual there! Mister ricochet (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It gets worse, believe me. It's also the land where men are men, and sheep are scared..., if you know what I mean. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to do citations, but I can certainly find sources for the info in question. Hotcop2 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree of course that this article should be a GA. But forget about "locked down" Ricochet, if you mean full protection - ain't gonna happen, nor should it. If you meant something else - well, I'm from the Bronx, so I don't speak your language. And Andrew, please let's keep the sheep in the meadow....Tvoz |talk 06:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to business, or busy nests

From 1970-1975: Solo career until Recreational drug use sections need work, and Yoko Ono (but she could always do with a bit of work on her). If references are put in, or stuff chopped out, this will be close to a GA. Then it's just a bit of elbow grease, and Bob's your Uncle, as they say. --andreasegde (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

john lennon photo AGAIN

All of a sudden, Wikicommons is questioning the Gruen NYC photo which I obtained persmission for and submitted the permission to Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about Fconaway. He's not an administrator. He's frustrated because they delete all of his pictures. Mister ricochet (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, "He's frustrated because they delete all of his pictures" - isn't life a bowl of cornflakes? Poor guy, one almost feels sorry for him... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that post and image had no place on this page. Uncool, very, very uncool. Next time it shows up, you will almost certainly get blocked, Ricochet. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it Shankbone is one of the guys you should be talking to about helping your image move quickly through commons. He's taken a lot of pictures of relatively famous folk, and probably knows the process pretty well. It might not hurt to get his assistance in the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, That picture is a Wikicommons picture. It's also from your buddy Shankbone. So who are you threatening to have blocked? me or Shankbone? Mister ricochet (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Think carefully about who I would be talking about, Ricochet. While you do so, please explain precisely how that image served any other purpose but to personally attack an established editor of Wikipedia? I don't care if its a picture of the cock of the Queen Herself, posting it here is utterly unacceptable, and breeds an atmosphere of contention and unprofessionalism that is unacceptable. By pulling your post, I may have saved you from getting blocked for NPA. You don't need to thanks me, but I am telling you like Jesus told John. if you add personal attacks like that again, they will be responded to, and quite severely. Do us all a favor, and keep your ire at other editors to professionally accepted venues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion page. Whatever direction it goes in is fair. This isn't a vandalization. I would be careful about insulting the Queen of England. We have some people on here that may take offense. And you didn't save me from anything. I might be saving you by warning you about the Queen and how people look up to her. Did Jesus tell John he would get blocked for NPA? I'll just go to his talk page then. Maybe I'll get some answers. Mister ricochet (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"This is a discussion page. Whatever direction it goes in is fair."

Um, no, that's incorrect. Perhaps you might want to brush up on several policies, like WP:TALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:NPA. We tend to follow these. As you are a newbie, perhaps you weren't as well-versed in them. This isn't a blog; you don't get to personally attack other editors with impunity. Consider what I am doing as reading you the riot act.

"This isn't a vandalization."

Wrong again. When it can be classified as not germane to the specific article (perhaps you missed that great big yellow box at the top of the page, hmm?) can be classified as disruptive and/or vandalism. What you thought was being considered vandalism was in fact seen as disruptive and a personal attack.

"I would be careful about insulting the Queen of England. We have some people on here that may take offense."

I'm not really worried, as i am guessing that she doesn't edit in Wikipedia, and this isn't her article. Anyway, she's fairly proud of her prod. :)

"And you didn't save me from anything. I might be saving you by warning you about the Queen and how people look up to her."

No, they pretty much know she has a big tool, as well. And if you think i didn't save you from anything, go ahead and reinstate the post. Ask anyone - your editorial life will shortly thereafter become a tragic series of unfortunate misunderstandings. Then again, Yoko Ono may send you flowers, and David Shankbone might ask you out to the prom. Guess which scenario my money's on?

"Did Jesus tell John he would get blocked for NPA?"

Actually, it's an expression expressing something quite clear. But in answer to your question, i do believe that no one warned John of NPA. Look how it turned out for him...

"I'll just go to his talk page then. Maybe I'll get some answers."

To Shankbone's page? That's about the smartest thing you've said on this page thus far. Good on ya. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... You won't discuss this on your page but you'll start a "cock block" thread on my page right? And this is no place to discuss Shankbone's dick. Looks like you hate to be wrong. And you are. Mister ricochet (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted to your talk page so as to not kick you around the curb for being a prat in this discussion page, shining a big ol' light on your mistake. You are right that I hate to be wrong, but anyone else here will tell you that when I am, I apologize, and immediately.You will note that such an apology hasn't been tendered here. that should tell you something rather important.

Are we done, or do you still wanna chit-chat about this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ricochet, but you're way out of line here - David Shankbone's photograph has nothing at all to do with this article, or even with the discussion about the Gruen photo, so Arcayne was completely right to remove it and he probably did do you a favor by doing so. You're actually quite wrong that anything goes on a talk page - "whatever direction it goes in is fair" - I think you know very well that talk pages are not forums even for discussing our opinions of the subject of the page, let alone peripheral chatter about anyone's opinion of an editor. It's completely inappropriate and against policy, and offensive to boot. We're here to discuss edits to the article about Lennon, that's all. We kid around on the Beatles' article talk pages, but it's done in good humor and we don't attack other editors, plain and simple. No one is saying we can't have a laugh, but you crossed a line with that gratuitous post, so let's just move on and work on getting this article in better shape. Tvoz |talk 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Kepp in mind that I didn't upload my dick to Commons nor did I post the picture file in it's open form here. You would have to click on the link to see it. Unfortunately, The very guy you are defending is to blame for the removal of the J.L. picture. You should be on his case. Not mine. Now all that we have is a Commons picture of his dick instead of a picture of John Lennon. Think about it. Mister ricochet (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you actually think I am bothered by seeing a picture of some guy's cock? I'm not (while I don't have pix of my penis, rest assured that, as a man, I know what one looks like), and if you think that's why I gave you a virtual smacking, you might need to address some issues outside of the capabilities of Wikipedia to assist; WP is not a therapist. I will ask you two simple questions:

1. What does the picture of the penis have to do with the article, John Lennon?

2. How does adding the wiki commons picture of Shankbone add to the article?

Knowing that you cannot adequately answer either of these questions without admitting to a personal attack, I am going to let you simply apologize and be quiet for a while, making constructive edits and fervently hoping that this stunning breach of of civility is eventually forgotten. I am not even going to ask you to say thank you for saving your sorry carcass. Had an admin come by and seen it, you'd be sitting out either a block or a ban.

Your call, Rico. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's cool down. I see you have zero self control. I don't want you to say something to get you blocked or banned. I'm not into that scene. I would much rather you add to the article than harp on cocks. I see you haven't added anything to Lennon for lord knows how long. So maybe you should go back to the fantasy articles that you frequent. And as for the questions you ask, I'll answer them (since you jumped the gun and said I couldn't)

1. The penis picture is Shankbone's. He started the whole NYC Lennon pic problem. He should worry about his cock picture instead.

2. I was making a point of what a pervert he is and how people like you look up to him (see User:Arcayne) and how he can single hadedly ruin the picture that Hoptcop2 was kind enough to track down and get permission for.

So there you go. Now behave yourself and make constructive edits to Batman and the 300 movie. Mister ricochet (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mister ricochet, you are now in block-able territory and I suggest you stop stamping your feet and acting like a child. By file size I am one of the top 50 loaders of images to Commons and out of 2,500 articles my photos illustrate, there are perhaps 20 articles that a model friend (not me) posed for because I tired of seeing every dude and bro take a camera phone picture of his cock and slap it up there. So yes, my photos of a model's body illustrate many of the body articles, from teeth to armpit to glans penis to chest - get over it. Aside from the fact you are making personal attacks against respected contributors, such as myself and Arcayne, you are doing so on a Talk page that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The main issue with it is that the Lennon photo needs an OTRS ticket saying that it has been released GFDL. HotCop2 said it was released for Wikipedia to use, but because of our licensing structure with Wikipedia's copyright, they don't allow for non-GFDL images unless it strictly falls within the boundaries of that license. There are very few exceptions made. However, I was not the one who removed it, and I don't have a problem with it being used "Fair use" but the copyright that was listed by HotCop2 said it was released GFDL and the copyright of Bob Gruen was released to the general public. Basically, the way HotCop put that license on perhaps one of the most famous photos of Lennon, he said that Bob Gruen has released his copyright to the entire public to use the photo for commercial and non-commercial use. I question if that is really what Gruen intended. Copyrighting it that way--unless it is true--opens up the site to legal problems. However, I simply raised the question. Other user spotted it immediately. If it had not been me, it would have been someone else. Now, something I *disagree* with to a degree is that they do not allow fair use images of a person on BLP articles. This is one of the reasons why I spend so much time taking original photos of people myself. I initially fought against the no-fair use images of people argument, but I lost that battle. So, I have spent an inordinate amount of time hunting down and contacting people to take original photos for the site, releasing my own copyright on those photos. Over 500 people. It sucks - but I fought against the policy and lost. The bright side? We have a lot of original content on our site that we, the community, own. Regardless, stop acting like a teenager, stamping your feet because you didn't get your way over a Lennon photo. It's not my doing, it's Wikipedia's. I simply raised the question about the problematic licensing and I was 100% correct to do so. Now continue on in this vein, and you will be blocked. --David Shankbone 17:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And did you issue that same warning to Arcayne? I don't accept the tone he has taken with me. And couldn't you find a friend with a straight cock? Thanks. Mister ricochet (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made a report to ANI regarding this situation or conduct on this page diff. Consider this a notice. R. Baley (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

R. , I respect everything you do. But dammit, I thought you were an admin all the while! You have a way with words. Mister ricochet (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations Needed in Solo Career

Do we really need a citation that "Whatever Gets You Thru The Night" hit #1, or that John re-recorded Lucy In The Sky with Elton John? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, not really, I suppose. I got a bit trigger-happy throwing in "fact" - sorry. (Although something from a chart page would be nice?) --andreasegde (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Knock him into GA shape

Removed rec. drug use, was horribly worded, had to go. If anyone is losing sleep over the removal, write a new section, we'll discuss if it has any value. I suggest a quick mention in one of the other sections. That's it. I added citations, removed some, it appeared to be citation bombed which is a no-no (but we love Andreasegde so we'll let that pass) there's a few more cites to go. Let's get him where he should be. Mister ricochet (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the Lennon NYC T-shirt photo

Although we had full permission to use it, someone decided to hassle me once again over the permission. I tried for a few hours to reason with the Wiki powers, but it ain't worth it. I have removed it. So this mediocre page can find a suitably mediocre photo to go with it. Hotcop2 (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get dispirited, Hotcop2, the Wiki photo zealots have been on the warpath on two or three articles I've worked on. Don't give up, because yer Fab yer are, and you're much valued. --andreasegde (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Awwww, thanks A. Nobody does anything "for the good of Wiki," just for the power play. so I had the power to remove the best photo of J.L. ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs)

Comee on, Hot, don't be that way. The article's images are going to be under a lot of scrutiny after Six's nonsense a few months ago. Once the image makes it through Commons, you are good to go. If you are encountering some difficulty, go to the editor who initially blocked Six and ask him for his personal assistance. He kinda struck me as someone one keen to help. the image is good enough to shoot for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arcayne and Andreasegde - and that photo is worth fighting for. Tvoz |talk 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you need the help, it's okay to ask for it. We all want the article to be better, bubelah. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am working with HotCop2 to get this done, will update as events unfold. R. Baley (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

What's "bubelah"? Tvoz says she is occasionally confused by Brit expressions, but I'm non-plussed by this one. Please do tell... :) --andreasegde (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Bubelah is a colloquialism from Yiddish referring to someone endearing. What, were you expecting some synonym for convex sheep lovery? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How dare you insinuate that this bulvon was thinking about sheep and their wedding tackle? (Bah-hah-ahhh... :) --The wolf in sheep's clothing (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, another disputed photo is in (as if you hadn't noticed :) Why don't we put a new one in every single day? That would confuse the heck out of 'em... (Sound of manic laughing) I'm almost (almost I said) tempted to write, "The removal of this photo is disputed because my mother has it as a magnet photo on her fridge. She likes it, so why don't you?" (I'm being silly, and I profusely apologise.)

Another point: Why is the photo in the infobox always disputed, but other fair use photos in articles are not? Oh-oh; have I just shot myself in the foot? --andreasegde (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's go back to the free image of him from the cropped image of him, Yoko and Trudeau. It's noted as "Image:Lennon69.jpg", It can serve until we have an image that is done jumping through all the hoops of Common-ism. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(I didn't upload the "soon to be deleted" image. I just added the silly caption...) --andreasegde (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the "Rehearsing Give Peace A Chance" photo to the infobox. It's from Commons, it's in colour, it shows Lennon playing guitar, and there is another photo of Lennon and the recording of the song further down. All we have to do is wait for Hotcop to cut through the red tape with a machete, Katana or a pair of sturdy Loppers, and we'll all be as happy as Larry. --andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a consensus. Anyone else want to get in on this? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Political activism and the deportation battle

Getting rid of the "citation needed" is going well, but the "Political activism and the deportation battle" section is full of them. Time to insert refs, or get the scissors out... --andreasegde (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Drug use

I have put Lennon's drug use back in (with a copy-edit) as it is well-referenced by Barry Miles' book, and web pages. if anyone has a problem with that, I suggest they find book references stating that Lennon did not take drugs. McCartney's article has the same section - it went for an FA and none of the editors mentioned the drug section as being a problem.--andreasegde (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that looks much better. The last version looked too choppy (sentence frags etc.) This will do. Mister ricochet (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you, Mister ricochet. The rest of the article has stuff like the drugs section had, but we can work on those. --andreasegde (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nutopia

It is now referenced, but I think it's in the wrong place. Shouldn't there be a section for Lennon and Ono's art stuff? (Bagism, Fly film etc.) --andreasegde (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's fine where it is. This article needs time continuity for his story to make sense; there are too many "sections" that pull critical things out of context. It wasn't "art" it was Lennon's ploy to receive amnesty as an ambassador to a (conceptual) country (and a great April Fool's prank). Hotcop2 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, Hotcop, that is where I used to agree with you, but Wikipedia does not. Have a look at the Paul McCartney article, because I was told that's how it should be, by no less than yer honorable Admin Kingboyk. We almost came to internet-blows about it a long time ago. I know it doesn't feel right, but any reviewer will complain his head off about lack of consistency.

It's a bit like putting your eggs and tomatoes at the bottom of the basket, and cans and potatoes at the top. Every facet of Lennon's life has to be individually documented, otherwise you would have Cynthia, McCartney, Harrison, Ringo, Yoko and May popping up in all sorts of places throughout the article. It would be too confusing too read. Try this: read an article by a band you have never heard of, and then try to remember what you have read. When names pop up all over the place you easily get lost.

(I'm doing these paragraphs 'cos it's easier on the eyes.) Last point (I promise) if you don't split the biography, you might as well have one long page that started with only three headers; Birth, Life, Death. (Sorry to go on like this) :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

1980 Starting over

There are two paragraphs that are not showing up in the article, but are there in the edit. I don't know how to fix this... anyone? Hotcop2 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I fixed it, because it was my fault (or maybe not? :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Househusband

Andreas, Can you move the "Househusband" section up to the end of the 1975 section, so it flows chronologically? Hotcop2 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You've got in one Hotcop! If we move House-husband up to the 1975s, then anyone reading it will not know who Yoko really is, as she comes later. I could move the whole Personal life section up, with Cynthia, Yoko and House-husband... but this is the problem - how do we make the sections seem ordered? --andreasegde (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yoko appears at the beginning of the article and is featrured throughout. She's also throughout the "solo career," all of which come before "perosnal life" -- I'm assuming that enough people know who Yoko is to wait to the end to read about her. But even Ono's section doesn't really talk about how they met (and there's plenty of info on that bit that goes far beyond hammering an imaginary nail). So once we get a good order, we can work on the actual sections. (this paragraph is about as coherent as the article LOL) Hotcop2 (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Yoko appears at the beginning of the article and is featured throughout". That is the problem - it's too confusing. The second one is this: "I'm assuming that enough people know who Yoko is". The problem for younger people is that they don't. It has to be clear, and easy to read. --andreasegde (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be a May Pang section after Yoko and before house-husband. She ws there during an important part of his recording career, as well as being his lover, so I think she deserves more than one or two sentences here and there. --andreasegde (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyle

I'm going to eliminate this three sentence summary of all the subtexts in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to sign your comments with four tildes. Mister ricochet (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The order of sections

The order now (albeit moving toward chronological as Hotcop would like) leaves it confused, as Househusband is way above Yoko Ono. I think I shall step back from this article until a concensus has been reached. Have fun :) --andreasegde (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

When we have so many sub-sections, we have decide on a flow. House-husband is in the "career" section because that was his career in the late 70s; we have to fill in the gap from 75-80 (I also changed the years of his solo career from 1970-1975 to 1970-1980 because that's what it was.

There is no way that this article can be completely chronological with all these subdivides. But, as an end section "personal life" it works. Cynthia should technically be in the Beatle section if we're going to be literal.

We have subsections. We have to make each individual subsection work. Hotcop2 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. His short forty-year life was very complex. Why should his article be any different? Mister ricochet (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

LET"S DECIDE ON THE ORDER OF THE SUBSECTIONS Hotcop2 (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing you might wanna do is move the family up. Mister ricochet (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've rearranged the major sections to what I think makes the most sense flow-wise and topic-wise. Opinions? We can still decide on the order of the less important sections, like Primal Therapy and Pseudonyms. Obviously, memorial would go last, I think Hotcop2 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's go for the GA

I think we're on our way to a somewhat coherant Wiki entry here. if anything it suffers from a little too much micro info; sometimes less is more. After we decide the order, we can suggest deletions or catch duplication, which Andreas has been doing quite nicely. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I agree with that. Andreasegde got this thing going. It's finally looking good. Mister ricochet (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

De-archiving

I had to revert part of the archive prematurely performed by Mister Ricochet, as we don't archive recent conversations. As some of those conversations noted Mister ricochet's suspiciously familiar mistakes, I think it needs to still remain in the discussion page for now.
I've also noted that in Mister ricochet's discussion page, he seems to note how he had obtained David Spindel's permission for a John Lennon image, and provided Spindel's email address. Guess who also made such a claim? The SSP report has been filed, and I will appraise this discussion of the results.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Update, a related AN/I has also been filed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is Rumor Control: here are the facts: The user identifying themselves as Mister ricochet has been found by SSP, RFCU and AN/I to be one of a great many sock-puppets for none other than that permanently banned puppetmaster, SixString1965. Hopefully, he will realize that he is always going to be caught, and stops wasting our time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah. He'll be back, as surely as night follows day. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Not if we ban the IP range. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Andreasegde's point

if we really want this article to make sense, we should eliminate the "personal life," put Cynthia and Julian before 1960-1970, put Yoko ono before 1970-1980, and the mention of the "Lost Weekend" as it stands now becomes sufficient. Andrea, you can do the cut/paste and see if it works. Hotcop2 (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I will wait until there is some agreement. It would be good to ask seasoned editors what their opinion is. :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Placeholder Image

Let's leave the 'give peace a chance' image in place for a while, until we have something good, free and not subject to any more nonsense. I think Hotcop is going to have his image source submit the old image again, and maybe when it clear WikiCommons anf GDFL, we can use that. Until then, let's hold off on images for a while. Call it a case of once bitten, twice shy, and thrice riding around in a covered PopeMobile. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do. BTW, isn't the Popemobile the ugliest car you have ever seen? It looks like a fishtank on wheels. --andreasegde (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Order

I learned this from Kingboyk, whilst working on the Paul McCartney Page, and although I disagreed with him at the time, I later understood what he was talking about; he was right.

• Early years
• First group
• Main group
• Solo career
• Marriages and relationships
• Lifestyle
• Death
• Achievements and critique
• Discography

It deals with Lennon alone, and then what happened around him. It’s hard to do, but one can not make pages chronological, as it makes it too confusing. - [User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S., From past experience, I know what I'm on about. :) -[User:Andreasegde|andreasegde]] (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good template. Hotcop2 (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, when we get the structure correct as per the template, we can edit a little better. I think we need more of Ono and her meeting Lennon and shorten the rock n roll circus thing. I know we're trying to put it all the info we think is important, maybe rock n roll circus can go into the 1960-70 career category as it was a performance?

Same with Cynthia. What about the famous quote by Lennon, "I only asked you for a date I didn't ask you to marry me?" More important than a slap in the face. Hotcop2 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's great to work on articles with other people, and I thank you for your comments, Hotcop. (It's not always as easy as this!) I think we should work solely on sections, what belongs in each section, and then work on the quotes/sentences. It's like brushing your hair, then combing your hair, and then going through it with a fine toothcomb. It's difficult, but it will be very rewarding when John gets a GA. --andreasegde (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Order

OK, I've moved stuff about again, as I think it's more readable. The marriages and relationships section is great now, (whoever did it) because My Pang is now in there with the Lost Weekend. The Comeback section is strange, because the stuff in it really belongs elsewhere. --andreasegde (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have moved some of it. --andreasegde (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After this order thing has been sorted out, it is paramount that we look for citations for everything that needs it, and then some... If something needs a citation, but is not needed, it should be deleted. --andreasegde (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Annie Leibovitz quote should go in her own article. Will do it later, but I have to go to the Pain-maker's first (dentist.) :( --andreasegde (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Wiki

Sentences containing things like, "rekindled his creativity", "had come to a bitter end", "Lennon delighted at having a ringside seat", "with Lennon at the helm", and "they got together many times", are too flowery and not encyclopedic enough (GA reviewers hate them :)) They would be alright for a biography I suppose, but not for a Pedia. Apologies if that sounds a bit harsh. --andreasegde (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking Good

there, nothing else to say ;-) Hotcop2 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that true? I hope not. There are more references for May Pang to find, because her contribution has been overlooked (until now...) Stay on board, Hotcop, because two extra hands are better than two of my fingers typing, and articles always needs some advice from fresh eyes... :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Long

The "Views on Christianity" section, IMHO, is too long, as it's as long as The Beatles section. --andreasegde (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have cut it back. --andreasegde (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Death

It is now 7,786 bytes, which could be made into a new article (it's too long as it is). Any ideas about a title for a new article?... --andreasegde (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we shorten it? When you say new article, do you mean standalone or within the Lennon page? Hotcop2 (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a new article. It's too long here, and it could be longer as its own article with comments from various people about where they were, etc,. I wouldn't want to cut it back here, as everything that's in it is verifiable and (I don't want to say this..) interesting. It doesn't mean cutting all of it out - just cutting it down after creating a new page. (Annie's comment could also join it, which I took out and moved to her page.) What does one think? --andreasegde (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Photos of Lennon and Cynthia are now in, as well as May Pang (thank you for uploading that one Hotcop). --andreasegde (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A damn shame that we cannot use the one of her and Lennon in the limo. A shot of her now seems...off-point. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the Limo photo is a brilliant, but I'm grateful to Hotcop2 for the photo. BTW, why does May get such bad press, or is almost ignored? I have heard her comments on YouTube, and I have no idea why. Would it destroy the ideal? (I know this is POV, but I don't care...) --andreasegde (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To do

• 1970-1980: Solo Career
• Political activism
• Yoko Ono

These need work, but especially the first two. --andreasegde (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Talking to myself

This the John Lennon talk page. It used to be a hive of activity and opinions - where did everybody go? (Sound of deafening silence...) --andreasegde (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think folk are just taking a break. All the sockpuppetry tends to wear people out. Give it a bit of time. Folk will come back. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you, Oh, lone voice in the wilderness. :)) I was just being humorous, BTW. I have now realised this article needs more references than I thought. Bugger... Lennon will get a GA or I will my eat my socks. Have fun. :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Shh, don't say 'socks' too loud. It might encourage them to visit... lol! - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I walked into that one! I personally admit that I would eat socks, but I have an aversion to puppets (because it's only a hand inside a sock). Good grief, I have to read what I write in the future... :) --andreasegde (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

page vandalized, and I can't edit

yeah the page was changed to "I am a kook"-john lennon and as the page is protected I can't edit it--12.72.53.178 (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Maybe you should start an account, and build up some edits, so you rock the article when you get enough editing time under your belt. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I wonder who 12.72.53.178 is? C'mon, Sixstring, be nice, why not? - John needs a GA. (This might be wrong, but Sherlock Holmes doesn't think so... :) --andreasegde (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Andreas, You know me better then that. I wouldn't vandalize ANY pages. The problem here is with the editors pissing people off. I was a damn good editor in my time, Then you got jealous people who come in to just stir the pot. I still want to know why nobody especially Arcayne, didn't email Spindel about the picture. Ahh... Good to be back for a minute. And Arc, watch your language. Whatever happened to the holiday spirit? Tvoz, keep cool. Innocentvictim (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is good fun; I was right, was I not? (Sherlock Holmes takes a pat on the back for his nose, which was very large :)) The thing here is this, Sixstring/Innocentvictim, or whatever. You are always welcome here, IMO, but people get a bit pissed off (English, meaning angry, and not drunk) about your aggressive comments - I was shocked myself about some of them. I think you could really help what we're trying to do here, but could you tone it down? Is that possible? That is up to you, because you're obviously not going to leave this page, but it would be so much nicer if we could work together, and not against each other. Is "Imagine" so hard? Love and co-operation are nice words, are they not (as John wanted to say). --andreasegde (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going anywhere. But just remember... I would never vandalize any pages. Especially calling JL a kook. Really uncool whoever that was. Anyway, I'll catch you in cyberspace. Innocentvictim (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I wish the best for you. I also thank you for saying, "I agree with that. Andreasegde got this thing going. It's finally looking good". That gave me a good feeling (even though I feel uncomfortable with compliments). All I want is that John has a GA, on a par with Macca. It would be nice. --andreasegde (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's true. Between you and Hotcop2, the article has some substance and not a jumble of run on sentences. So, keep the excellent work going and for the new year you can give John that GA that everyone is looking for. Innocentvictim (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's get JL that GA, Whaddyasay Arcayne? Innocentvictim (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I mean this from the very bottom of my heart, SixString: F.O.A.D. You are an abusive sock-puppet. You are a deceptive piece of crap who originally was indefinitely banned for repeatedly faking image data and couldn't control your temper. You blew your chances to contribute by cheating and then lying about it.

I don't care if you know David Spindel. I don't care if you carried water for Lennon or were the Fifth Beatle. You have no voice here anymore, and you have no one - I repeat, NO ONE - to blame but yourself.

You break Wiki policy and when you get blocked, you don't even have enough remorse to stay the fuck away for a respectable amount of time before petitioning for another chance. No, what you do is create sock-puppet after sock-puppet and pretend to be someone else so you can try to be the smartest guy in the room. Newsflash, jack-ass: you aren't. Sure, you can keep making up new IDs until a concentrated effort is made to block you more permanent-like. Every time you create these fake accounts, and you are inevitably discovered (because you are so arrogant, you actually think your deception is a redeeming quality) you drive yet another nail in the coffin of you EVER being able to contribute here again respectfully, correctly and validly.

You are an abusive, misogynistic and racist prat who quite frankly is pathetic enough to think you are going to have anything to do with getting this article to GA. You aren't a part of the process anymore. You are part of the problem. Let me say that again, so it will somehow act as a Cudgel of Enlightenment cracking through your thick skull: you aren;t a part of this project, this article or this discussion anymore. You were blocked because you could not be trusted, and all these sock-puppets simply confirm that assessment.

If you were the sort of person who actually listened to advice, i would suggest you go off somewhere, do whatever it is that creeps like you do, and in 4-6 months time, apply for reinstatement and accept whatever restrictions you are put on. Do without the sock-puppets, and accept that you are not going to have any legitimate part of this article or this project during that absence. If you can do without sock-puppeting for 3 months, that will tell me that you are deserving of a second chance, and I will support that second chance. I don't really think I am going out on a limb, because I honestly don't think you can do it. Your ego won't let you. Prove me wrong, Sixstring, or whatever sock you happen to be using at the moment.

This is the last time I am going to talk to you directly, as per WP:DFT. Don't send me messages through Andreasgede or Hotcop2 or anyone else. Until you prove that you are worthy of my respect, you aren't going to get either it or my time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Peace

If you like John Lennon (as I'm sure you do, Sixstring/Innocentvictim) then you have to think about PEACE. That's what he talked/sang about, didn't he? He had a really difficult life when he was young, but he had a vision, and he believed it. What he really said was this: Be honest, but be nice. This thing we are all writing about is not about you and Arcayne, it's about JOHN LENNON, and the Wikipedia article concerning him, and only him. That is what we should be concentrating on. We should co-operate and fight against vandals (who say things like "Lennon and McCartney were homos, dude) and not not fight against each other. I'm very passionate about this, because I really don't like it (and it makes me feel ill). --andreasegde (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot edit here, SixString1965, either as you or some sock. Period. You are a liability at this point. be a man, and walk away until you can apply for reinstatement. You aren't a part of this community or this discussion. You cannot be, as you squandered that chance, at least for now. We will deal with the vandals on our own, and we will muddle through somehow without you and get the article to GA or even FA. You aren't part of the solution; you are part of the problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Yeah! Hotcop2 has just put in much-needed references, which is absolutely wonderful. I may give Hotcop2 a Barnstar. Which one, I ask? --andreasegde (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a ninja throwing star! lol

Actually, there are plenty of stars for diligence. I think Hot's earned one for having gone through the fire of being accused of being a sock for some pathetic, needy plod. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)