This user may have left Wikipedia. John Cardinal has not edited Wikipedia since June 2022. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Please note: If I started a conversation by commenting on your talk page, please respond there so we can keep the conversation in one place.
I have been thinking along similar lines as you for some time. A year or two ago I studied the citation methods in use and came up with WP:Verification methods, which is very similar to your essay, although I chose not to actually rank them as you have. My career in Wikipedia is kind of winding down at this point, but I'm watching with interest about where your efforts will lead. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hey "Johns" . Just wanted to let you know that I'm imposing a tiny break from the proposal on myself. They've kind of beat me down there, in the last 24 hours or so. *sigh* I'll come back and see where it's at later on, though. I don't expect it to die any time soon, since it's listed on cent and linked to from several talk pages now. — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, yes it is true that some early computer enthusiasts played this song on their computer, but the point is, the section does not establish that this is notable -- it's just a performance (one of thousands probably) of the song. The paragraph goes into technical detail that is far beyond the interest of the typical WP reader. Certainly, my reaction (and, I imagine, would be the reaction of many others) on reading the paragraph was "What the heck...?". Are you sure the section has merit for this article? Cheers, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what to add beyond my original edit summary. I won't revert the latest removal, but I don't agree. While some might call it trivial, I don't think it is: an early—if not the first—example of a personal computer playing a song is notable in both the computer and music fields. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my God John, this discography is so messed up! How did we let this happen? UK is supposed to be listed first, before USA or anything else! This is going to take a lot of time to clean up. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we didn't let it happen, did we? The first time I spent any time reviewing the article, it was already like that. I'll fix a section or two today, but remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I understand what you mean, but I think the problem in the article is in the Lewishohn citation. I didn't put the citation in the article; it was already there. But, I just looked at page 9 of Lewisohn, and there is nothing there that mentions the count-in at all. (The page merely refers to why McCartney wrote the song.) Perhaps the entire sentence (and reference to Lewisohn should come out, and instead the paragraph should be something like this:
On the album, the song starts with a rousing "One, two, three, four!" count-in by McCartney (pronounced "one, two, three, fah!"). Usually, these count-ins are edited off the final audio mix. However, according to the liner notes on the Beatles "Free as a Bird" CD single, in this case, the count-in was actually added on to the song by record producerGeorge Martin. (The liner notes state that the count-in is from take 9, while the master take is take 1, which was not preceded by a count-in). Ironically, on the first American release of the song, Vee Jay Records removed the count-in, believing that it was left on the recording by mistake. Music journalist, Richard Williams, suggested that this dramatic introduction to their debut album was just as stirring as Elvis Presley's "Well, it's one for the money, two for the show…" on his opening track, Blue Suede Shoes, for his debut album seven years earlier.[1] In addition it also made the point that The Beatles were a performing band as, at that time, they opened their live set with this song[2]
I would have cited the CD single, but you mention before that phonographic records should not be cited. Instead, I mentioned it in the text. What do you think? Best, Ernie Ernie Scribner (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what is asserted above is unsourced. You can't substitute prose for a source; you need a reliable source for anything that isn't dead obvious. The liner notes can be cited, and you can use that for the count-in from take 9. Your version of Lewisohn is different from mine, because on my copy, McCartney and Lewisohn are discussing the song and Lewisohn asks, "Why did you open the song with that 'one, two, 'three, four!'?". McCartney responds, in part, "that [count-in] was particularly spirited ...".
Taking one example, we probably don't require a source for the lack of a count-in on the Vee-Jay version, but asserting that they deliberately removed it because they thought it was a mistake can't be verified by listening to the record. That needs a reliable source. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ian MacDonald makes reference to T9 providing the count-in for T1, tucked away in a footnote on p.60 of RitH (my copy is Pimlico’98). Any good? Also, I think it should be concise.--Patthedog (talk) 10:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm sorry. My version of The Beatles Recording Session DOES have the Paul McCartney quote. It's at the bottom of the page. I was looking farther up at the page, where the song is first discussed. Then McCartney and Lewisohn go on to talk about "She Loves You" and "Thank You Girl," and I assumed the discussion on "I Saw Her Standing There" was over. It wasn't; and I was remiss to not read the entire page before I posted my note on your talk page. I apologize.
However, I'm still a little confused about what I did wrong. The liner notes of the "Free as a Bird" CD single specifically state that the count-in was added from a different recording (Take 9 added to Take 1), and I said that in the text. I didn't put a footnote citing the disc because when I did use a footnote citing a phonographic record for the hi-hat intro of "All My Loving," I was told something to the effect that, even though Turabian accepts citations from phonographic records, they are not preferable sources for citations on Wikipedia.
Ernie, whether a citation style accepts a sound recording and whether a particular sound recording is an adequate source fr some assertion are two different things. There's no way for someone listening to "I Saw Her Standing There" to determine that the count-in is from take 9. You could have cited the liner notes from the CD single if they support the assertion. When I saw that addition, it matched my recollection that the count-in was from a different take, but I looked in Lewisohn, MacDonald, and Miles and I didn't see anything to back it up. I don't have the "Free As a Bird" CD single so I couldn't look there. It turns out I didn't look hard enough at MacDonald, however, as Patthedog found it ion a footnote, and cited it. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And, as for Vee Jay removing the count-in by mistake, that information is from one of Bruce Spizer's books (The Beatles Are Coming, I believe). I didn't cite it, because I do not own the book, and, consequently, I cannot provide the publishing information or page number. But, there must be someone here who has the book (perhaps even you) who can insert the citation.
I don't have that book. My suggestion would be to add the info when you have the source available. Another option is to add it now and include {{citation needed}}. That's OK by WP policies, but personally, I think it's lazy: some editor adds content to a page and then asks some other editor who comes along later to do the legwork. The end result is a lot of unverified content cluttering up articles and little hope that anyone will find the sources. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so hard on yourself. You didn't do any damage to the article. Your edits weren't accepted, but you prompted a dialog where the end result was an improvement to the article. When you add material, it has to be verifiable, and that means that you must cite a source and the cited source must directly support the assertions you've added to the article. What you did might have been unchallenged on an article about a song by some other artist, but there are a lot of editors watching articles related to The Beatles and we are trying hard to keep all of them moving in a positive direction. There's a lot of unsourced material in those articles already, and we don't want to add more. By challenging unsourced additions right when they occur, we prompt the editor who adds the material to source it at a time when it's more likely than not that they have access to the source. That wasn't true in this case, but it seems to be true in my experience. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ernie, your intelligent and refreshingly polite approach to this query prompted us all to have a deeper look into our reference books, which achieved the desired result. Thanks for your contribution, and please know that you are welcome here.--Patthedog (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you expressed an interested in the enhancement to Cite.php that I proposed, I would be grateful if you could take a look at a demonstration of the enhancement here.
Hi there, just wondering why you reverted my edit to Ringo Starr's article? There are confirmed sightings of Ringo around Colchester and it has made local news. Thanks,
Hi John, I noticed that you have made amendments to the infoboxes on several Strawbs singles recently. You have set the "type" label to "single" in the extra tracklisting template - may I ask why you have done this? The albums in question were studio albums not single compilations. Also look at the examples from the template:extra tracklisting page, notably Smells Like Teen Spirit. You can reply here as I'm temporarily watching this page. Best Witchwooder (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Type code should reflect the type of the outermost Infobox so that the heading colors are all the same. That's what {{Infobox album}} says, for example (look in the examples). Note also that Infobox song has the ability to do a track list without using an extra template, and that track list has the same color as the outer infobox. One infobox should not use a rainbow of section colors. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is wrong, despite being used as an example. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff. I must admit it does look better, although I disagree with your pronouncements about usage. However I do not wish to start an edit war over something as trivial as this! Thanks for taking the time to explain and furnishing examples. Best Witchwooder (talk) 09:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've seen your edits, cleaning up the formatting etc., which have been very good, however I'm concerned about your removal of the links from the Music project page (which I thought were useful) and also the re-direct from the 'See also' section, making the cross-referencing no longer visible. Can we talk about these changes? Thank you. --Kleinzach23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very open to discussing the points you mentioned.
I deleted the detailed links from the project page because they were implemented using a mechanism that didn't work after the multiple subpages for MUSTARD were re-combined into a single source file. Leaving the links as they were produced double-redirects. As far as I know, double-redirects don't work, so someone clicking one of those links would have been left on a redirect page. With a few minutes of editing, we can produce a similar list that will work properly. I'll start on it soon.
I am not sure what you mean about the "See also" section. There was discussion on the MUSTARD talk page where I proposed deleting five sections didn't sem to have usual content beyond the generic WP guidelines. An editor suggested that two of them were worth keeping, and I deleted the other three. One of the deleted sections was "See also" sections. (You can see the old content here.) When I recombined the source pages into a single file, I made the old subpages redirects so that someone going to one of the old pages would be redirected to the main article where the content is now. There was no way to do that with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/See also because there is no such section in the MUSTARD page, so I redirected it to the main WP guideline for "See also" sections. I am open to better ideas about that. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I realize now that I didn't have MUSTARD on my watchlist, only individual sections of it, hence my incomplete understanding of what was happening, and also the fact I missed your discussion on the talk page. I wasn't aware you'd removed the separate source pages, though obviously that's fine as they probably confused people (including evidently me!).
Regarding the 'See also' section (here) I thought that was useful as a reminder (and link to the main article) and worth keeping in the new page, however it's obviously a minor matter. --Kleinzach00:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "See also" sections part of MUSTARD didn't have anything in it that was specific to Music Project articles. Given that, I am not sure why it part of MUSTARD. It described a subset of the WP guidelines on See also sections, and the full WP guideline isn't much longer. If you think it's valuable, how about adding to the discussion on the MUSTARD talk page? — John Cardinal (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - I am seeking guidance here because you are the one Beatles expert I know of on Wikipedia... (we interacted a while back re "Only a Northern Song" and whatnot)
What I put in the relevant Talk page itself is basically the truth as far as I can divine it - i.e., there is not very much here to substantiate the persistent Tin-Tan claims.
I think there is better evidence to refute the claim than to substantiate it. I have read various accounts of the process used to select the people included in the cover and none mention Tin-Tan or his desire to be replaced by a Mexican tree. Bob Spitz, in The Beatles: The Biography, describes the process used to select the people for the cover in some detail, including the various people who were suggested but were removed for one reason or another. He doesn't mention Tin-Tan, and he quotes Ringo as saying, "Whatever the others have is fine by me, I won't put anyone in." (See pages 674–679.) While Spitz isn't error-free (what source is?), his book qualifies as a reliable source and and a blog entry—in any language—does not. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra information John - I will keep an eye on the page, it seems to me this single-blog-sourced edit needs to stay out of there until we get something more reliable/substantial. :-) --DaveG12345 (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, yes, but I know where the bounds of my competence lie :-)
I'm never very comfortable distinguishing between the start/C grades - which most projects use - and as such I don't really want to start saying confidently this is X, this is Y, especially in articles where I'm not familiar with the quirks of the relevant project's rating standards. On the other hand, an article being or not being a stub is a pretty clear-cut decision - it's a universal standard, more or less.
It does make the destubbing a bit less helpful than it might otherwise be, I agree, but I think it's still helpful to some degree - it's a rating that's clearly out of date, and better it be removed than we have a misleading idea of what our overall quality is. Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I was actually referring to the template... my apologies. Anyhow, that's a good question - Steve Holly or Steve Holley? Most searches I just done through Google show Holly, but all "personal" searches on him show Holley. Good question though (like where was Florence Ballardreally born?). Hmmm. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. John, personally I don't know, and like you, I too thought his name happened to be spelt Holly, but I guess I just don't know anymore. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I should give you a heads up, but User:J miester25 has reverted your AWB edits, mostly related to Killing Joke articles. I didn't know if I should've reverted his edits back to yours or not since I have no knowledge on infoboxes.--猛禽22••07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen you deleted my edit on the Tell Me What You See lead vocals.
In the 2009 CD booklet you can read lead vocals by John and Paul.
And if you listen to the song you can hear Lennon singing all the song.
I think you're wrong when you say it's only McCartney in the lead vocals.
Same issue on Drive My Car.
--Danyaddita (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your Help! edit didn't cite a source and you didn't enter an edit summary to explain the change. Meanwhile, the vocal is credited to McCartney in the "Tell Me What You See" article, with a harmony vocal for Lennon, and the Personnel section in the song article is cited to a reliable source. When I listen, I hear a lead vocal from McCartney with nearly-constant harmony from Lennon. But what you or I hear doesn't matter; what matters is what reliable sources say. With the added information from the CD booklet, perhaps both articles should be adjusted. The opinion of a reliable source (Ian MacDonald) should not be discarded, however. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, can I ask a favour? I’ve been doing a bit of work on this article, and have been really struggling with the old referencing system. I would much prefer to be using your alternative model, as I find it simpler (a real bonus for someone like me!) and lighter on its feet. Would you be able to do that for me when you have the time? Cheers. --Patthedog (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's now using short footnotes. To make the conversion, I usually do some cleanup of the existing citations first, and and then convert. I am not sure the Q and Mojo citations are correct. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do try and be a little quicker off the mark next time. Seriously, thank you! I will check out the two refs you mention. If you come across any JN stuff in any of your reading (I know your Beatles library is extensive), please feel free to contribute. Much appreciated.--Patthedog (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, John Cardinal. You have new messages at Gracefool's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Saw your exchange with PL. If you're ready to take it on, go for it. I've wrapped up work unless and until something comes up in the new FAC, and anything that does can wait till you've gone through it. DocKino (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, great. This may take a couple sessions; PL says many entries in the References section don't use cite templates, so they'll have to be converted. That part will be by hand. Once I have those done, the rest of the changes will mostly be automated. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you If you want to convert {{tl|TLS-H}, that would be nice. I don't have the patience. {{Mapit-US-cityscale}} needs to be converted to {{coord}} before deletion. I know that if you simply convert every instance of "Mapit-US-cityscale" into "Coord" the template will work, but it will miss a little bit of information (e.g. listing that a city is in the United States.) That one is probably pretty straight-forward, but I'm concerned that I will screw it up. Thanks yourself for all of your assistance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am working on the {{Mapit-US-cityscale}} template. The issue is that in many cases the coordinates are redundant to coordinates already appearing in the infobox. I am planning to start AWB on this very soon. However, any additional help would be appreciated. Plastikspork―Œ(talk)20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some cases of Mapit-US-cityscale are simpler than others... I've got a simple AWB find/replace setup to convert an "External links" entry to use Coord (unused so far), but if I understand correctly, it's better to remove the Mapit-US-cityscale entry entirely (with no replacement), and let the infobox do the work, right? — John Cardinal (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if the infobox has coordinates in it, then you could simply remove it. Or, in the case of {{infobox settlement}}, you can add a "coordinates_display = inline,title" and "coordinates_type = region:US_type:city", which will completely replace its functionality. With the exception of not having it in the EL section, which is not the best idea anyway. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)21:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It looks like the ''' at the end of {{Mapit-US-cityscale}} confused my script and I didn't notice it when I hit save... Thanks for fixing it. How on earth did you notice that? Was it a left-behind transclusion of the template with a change history that said I removed it? — John Cardinal (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how I found it. I found another one after that. I believe the issue is if there isn't a newline following the template, or if there are extra parameters being passed to the template, your script is not removing them. For example {{Mapit-US_cityscale|0.00|0.00|display=title}} was one, and {{Mapit-US_cityscale|0.00|0.00}}blah was another. It's not a big deal, since they will still show up as transclusions and can be fixed later. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk)00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And also, if you recognise scouse, then he clearly shouts four. But, I suppose that’s not the debate, it’s over whether or not anything that has been published has a right to be included - rubbish or not. I’d say not, if it lends nothing at all to quality of the article.--Patthedog (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the inclusion in a book makes a good argument for inclusion, in general, but in this case, there are other sources more credible sources that say nothing about it. I think that's what matters, and consensus, but I guess we'll see. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John... Being quite possibly as Wikipedia's greatest editor of all-time, feel absolutely free to do whatever you wish to The Beatles discography or anything else at that matter, to anything you feel like. I personally have to admit, you truly are the best! LOL. Best, --Discographer (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Discog, I am not sure what's up with the post above. I appreciate the compliment, of course--thanks. Is there something specific that you need? — John Cardinal (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have an amazing idea!, to expand on the History of sound recording, I think we (you, me, Steelbeard1, Andre and your friend Patthedog), should start a new project about the history of the music industry i.e. its record labels, and how they came to be, as up thru now with the four left remaining: Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and Universal Music Group. I know this would take a long time to do, and I figured, with as knowledgeable as you are, that we could, with Steelbeard1 - who knows a lot about this subject, Andre - who turns articles into FA status, and Patthedog - who I think is pretty old but incredibly intelligent (and very humorous, as I've read his one-line wise-cracks - my favorite is when you thought he and Andre should go get a room!) and that with our combined super-talent, that we could come up with a very amazing article that's currently missing from Wikipedia. This has been on my mind for awhile now, but it sure would be nice to have this (only when we're all ready to begin this, though). I know it would be mammoth! What do you think? Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discog, I admire your enthusiasm and I think the article would be a nice addition to WP, but the scope may be too big. even if you focused only on the record labels, there'd be a lot of material. I am not that familiar with the history of the various pioneers and the companies they founded, but I suspect there's a lot to it. Regarding my participation, I don't think I would have much to add, as I haven't really studied it. Don't let my comments dissuade you from pursuing the topic, however, as there are probably lots of other editors who would participate once you got it started. One thing I think would be interesting is a macro-level view of how the various companies came into being, merged, split, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, that's what this article's to be about - not really the histoty of the industry, but the history of the labels from then through now - from the original record company and it's spin-offs all the way to what we have now (the big four)! This should be spun-off from the History of sound recording. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be a massive undertaking. While there are still independent recording companies, the "big four" dominate the industry and all of them took the catalogues of both still active as well as defunct record labels. Universal Music Group has its own page giving its history from now going back to its oldest label founded in 1898. That page is at [
http://new.umusic.com/history.aspx]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe we can just make a timeline then, showing dates and labels only, with merges and acquisitions and spin-offs, break-ups, hook-ups, et al, of all the "major" labels, since it started, as to what we have now ("the big four", formerly known as The Gramophone Company, and others). Well, let's put this on hold for now and talk about it again some other time... maybe when it's down from four to two. See you Nipper... Best, --Discographer (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three of these are official sources, but Sony/BMG's isn't, as it's not by them, and ends with 2004 and with the BMG attachment to Sony (who acquired the rest of BMG recently). Is their a way to find their official timeline, Steelbeard1? If not, then I guess we'll just have to use this. Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well basing this somewhat on The Beatles timeline, we'd have to either drop the "event type" from our proposed timeline, or change it altogether to something (instead of having, for example, P=Performance, RS=single release) such as M=Merge, A=acquired/acquisition, S=split, C=Created (or F=Formed, F=founded), D=dissolved...; the "loc" could stay, as Britain, America, Germany, Holland, France, and Japan are all part of this, and maybe since their is only four labels remaining, might we color-code each of these labels with that of its repective event (for example, Sony = red (Japan)) would have that color next to all its events. Comments... Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, not including PURPLE, what were the WWII colors for ULTRA, MAGIC and ENIGMA? To make this easier, which colors represented Britain, USA, Germany, and Japan in WWII? Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, Steelbeard1, unfortunately this is going to be cancelled. I done some research and found out that there's more record companies than Elvis Presley songs! (Now that's a lot!) So, I think it'd be best if this just be dropped. Well, that's that, I guess. If either of you have an idea for a project, by all means, let's hear it. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually according to this Harvard style guide, the cites in question would fall into the category "Web page with corporate or organisational author" (see pg 8 in the guide). They are ref-named by website and alphabetized in the bibliography by website. While this is an Australian guide, I would think others would show the same consistency between ref-naming and alphabetization basis. Ideally, of course, our bibliography template would allow us to place the website name before the article name in such cases, but it doesn't seem that's technically possible. Best, DocKino (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You edit to Please Please Me didn't work. There is an error with the referencing apparently. The Rolling Stone page is still the same as before and it doesn't contain the exact words in the "quotation marks". McLerristarr (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the WikiProject_Albums page, the "see WikiProject_Albums" comment thing is meant to be placed at the start of the article. I put it on Please Please Me then you removed it. I think it's meant to be there so people read how to make an album article before changing or re-arranging something that was already correct. McLerristarr (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a content dispute! He's deliberately adding factually incorrect content, and the refs he's providing contradict the content he's added. Thanks for keeping an eye, but let's call it what it is! Radiopathy•talk•02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and he's already been reported at WP:AIV, who also said it was a content dispute~ Anyone who reads my note on his talk page and takes a close look at his refs will see that it's deliberate. Radiopathy•talk•02:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't appear to be deliberately vandalizing the article. He believes he is improving it. I think he's wrong, but his edits are not vandalism. In any case, both of you have gone way past 3RR and you should both be blocked. I started to report both of you, but the edit war page took a major effort to add a case and Zero0000 jumped in so I didn't finish. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that Plastikspork was adding infoboxes to the other articles, so I had been trying to clear out many of the remaining articles with Mapit-US-cityscale before it was deleted. As far as adding the infoboxes goes, I'm not sure what a better way to go about doing that would be, but there's many pages out there without Mapit-US-cityscale which need infoboxes; in addition to the ones I converted, many such pages were converted long before Mapit-US-cityscale became deprecated. For the time being, I'll focus on removing Mapit-US-cityscale from articles that aren't communities in Category:Geolinks maintenance (which there's plenty of) and let you and Plastikspork work out a solution for the rest. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation02:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is straight from the Guinness press release announcing McCartney's entry in the book:
“
"Sir Paul McCartney became the Most Successful Songwriter who has written/co written 188 charted records, of which 91 reached the Top 10 and 33 made it to No.1 totalling 1,662 weeks on the chart (up to the beginning of 2008).
So, the people at Guinness agree with me, that written/co-written is more "accurate". On the other hand there are the random unpaid editors on WP...hmmm. Which one is more trusted, hmmmmmm, John, you have reverted my edits citing "WP is not a valid source". How could a usage at an invalid source take precedent over Guinness? Anyway, its simple logic, and comes down to self research. Do you really think Paul is "responsible for" "Something", "All you Need is Love", "Revolution", "Come Together" etc...etc... GabeMc (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness didn't say written/co-written was more accurate than anything else. They simply worded it that way. If you don't like the fact that WP is edited by random unpaid editors, what are you doing here?
I reverted your edit because WP has a rule that you can not use one WP article as a source for another. It's an automatic revert by any editor who has any experience on WP.
Yes, I think Paul is responsible for "Something", "All you Need is Love", "Revolution", "Come Together". I don't think he is "solely" responsible, but given I am not concerned about splitting hairs due to a Lennon/McCartney obsession, "responsible" is fine with me. There are other factors involved, but I am so tired of arguing this bullshit with you that I am not going into it and I will leave it at this: multiple editors agreed that "responsible" is fine. Get over it.
John look at Paul's article objectively, and check the source for his 32 us hits, it's a 23 minute BBC interview, with no confirmation WHATSOEVER of 32 US hits.
Also, you say his 32 hits were cited below and you took the time to revert my edit, but you didn't bother to check. Not if the fact in question is the same as below, which it isn't, below it says 29 US #1s, or if the source is valid, which it isn't, it has the invalid source mentioned above.
Here is the citation that you used to revert my edits, tell me I was wrong, the same citation for Paul's 32 US #1s.
BTW, I saw Paul at that show in Denver, he rocked hard! Amazing to do Helter Skelter in your encore, and nail it! GabeMc (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell me to look at anything "objectively". Comment on edits, not on the editor. If you continue to make comments about me, I'm going to ignore you altogether and/or report you to admins.
I did take the time to check, and I had already decided that the issue was internal consistency in the article. That's not solved by adding a "citation needed" in the lead. I went to look for sources, but spent most of my editing time tonight dealing with vandalism and responding to talk page BS.
I found this Guinness article that says there were 33 #1 hits, but didn't specifically mention which charts or which country. It supports the claim that McCartney is the most successful songwriter:
"Sir Paul McCartney became the Most Successful Songwriter who has written/co written 188 charted records, of which 91 reached the Top 10 and 33 made it to No.1 totalling 1,662 weeks on the chart (up to the beginning of 2008).
I also found this, which you also cited on Lennon's page, where it has a total of 20 for Lennon and 24 for McCartney, but is for the UK, not for the US. McCartney's solo career was more successful in the US than in the UK.
Allmusic's list of Billboard Hot 100 shows 21 Beatles #1 and 11 Wings/solo/other #1 for McCartney, for a total of 32.
The song is credited to Harrison, in what world do you live in that gives Paul "responsibility" for one of George's songs? GabeMc (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't own it. You may have noticed that multiple other editors have reverted your edits, including another editor who just reverted your 30/31 edit. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just please, look at it, read it through, don't just blanket revert, that's all I ask. It discourages multiple editors when their hard work is reverted in a second without any thought. GabeMc (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about Elton's cover of "Lucy"? HotCop2 pointed out, that Elton John had a Hot 100 #1 with his cover of "Lucy" with Lennon on guitar and background vocals, which I suppose gives another to both Lennon and McCartney, so 32 #1s looks correct for Paul. GabeMc (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am really sorry, you made a lot of effort to help me, and I re-paid that favor by being "belligerent, provocative and personal", I will work on it, I promise. Thanks again for the help you gave me, and if you ever want to give me any tips again (I don't blame you if you don't), please do so, I would appreciate it. GabeMc (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate your help, really I do, I am sorry to come across as such an ass, in person I am much less offensive. I will honestly try to apply all the things you have taught me in good faith. GabeMc (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You probably noticed during the Presley FAC that Eubulides brought a performance improvement by replacing the {{cite web}} etc. templates with the newer and more efficient {{vcite web}} etc. He's suggesting we do the same for The Beatles. It seems good to me, but I'd like make sure you don't have any concerns. Your input to the discussion would be appreciated. PL290 (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Real Love (John Lennon song) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
--Plotfeat (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Revolution 9. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolution 9. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the significant contributors to the Chuck Berry article you might be interested that I have nominated it to be listed as a WP:Good article. There is often a delay between nominating and somebody being free to review an article; however, you may wish to keep an eye on it to see how the review progresses and perhaps help out on any issues if you feel you are able. SilkTork *YES!10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, John! John, you've only made one edit since last March, I really would like for you to return back and make more edits again, as your edits prove extremely quite valuable. Also, honestly, I miss working with you and want you to come back! I would like to ask might you vote on this issue concerning the peak position of The Beatles song "Something", please? Even if you don't vote on this, please come back again! The "Red" and "Blue" albums will be re-released soon. Thanks! Your friend, --Discographer (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:JohnLennonImaginePostcard.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk06:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has taken part in previous discussions regarding the use of succession boxes in articles for songs and albums, I'd like to notify you of a request for comment that is taking place at WT:CHARTS#Request for comment: Use of succession boxes. It would be nice to finally come to a resolution on this. If you have already participated in this RFC or do not wish to participate, then please disregard this notice. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the essay on citation method comparisons. I was struggling with figuring out how to use sfn and un-bylined newspaper articles, and you answered the question directly. LaurentianShield (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berlin Airlift (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestra Luna (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luna (Boston band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:The Beatles tracks
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowserCheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion of Template:Extra collapsed text
Thanks for uploading File:PleasePleaseMe audio cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Withthebeatlescover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Template:The Supremes timeline event has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
