User talk:John Cardinal

Archive links Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 McCartney/Lennon vs. Lennon/McCartney Thanks for correcting me on the Please Please Me album credit, and for agreeing with my other changes. I'm embarrassed for not actually looking at the picture of the UK vinyl before I changed that one. I do feel, however, that it is worth distinguishing the UK McCartney/Lennon credit from the US Lennon/McCartney (or J. Lennon/P. McCartney) credit, and I will work on this - the Please Please Me single page shows both UK and US original vinyls, and the difference in credit is clear and should be noted. Even the Please Please Me single template lists Lennon/McCartney as the composer - this should all be sorted in a simple way. Hopefully you will approve - Peace — Doc9871 06:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Note that all Capitol releases were after the UK release of "She Loves You" and will probably show the L/M credit. The other releases were by a hodge-podge of cmpanies, none of whom had their act together. More importantly, the consensus is to treat the UK releases as the definitive releases, aka "canon". In the end, this is pretty simple: they were listed as M/L before "She Loves You". P.S. You somehow re-instated a bunch of archived edits on this page. That's not the way to handle it. First, you could have responded on your own talk page; it's usually best to keep discussions in one place. Once you decided to move it here, you should have simply used the "new section" link at the top of the page to add your comment. Instead, you must have opened one of the archives and edited that, which had the effect of restoring all the archived comments. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry about the archive glitch - I'm still learning the nuances of editing on this site. You are clearly a well-established and respected editor, and I appreciate any feedback. Quite curious as to why the original UK Parlaphone release of the very first single Love Me Do is credited to Lennon/McCartney (see Love Me Do.jpg)? The Please Please Me single (see Please Please Me 45.jpg) is clearly similar in release format, yet it is credited to McCartney/Lennon. Obviously, the original UK release of the Please Please Me album lists M/L, as does the UK release of From Me To You. Aside from these two singles and the one UK album, all other Parlaphone and Capitol releases (the only legit ones) appear to list L/M as the composer - am I wrong? Not sure anymore, but it seems "the canon" heavily favors the L/M crediting over the comparatively quite rare M/L credit . I feel that McCartney/Lennon (et al.) should either A) Be its own page, or B) Should not redirect to Lennon/McCartney and should be noted in articles only. And I'm really for the former, what with all the controversy about Paul changing the credit order around in his newer releases. I'll be mucking about for a bit, so I'm sure we'll continue to help all Beatles editors come to a true consensus on this very touchy subject. Peace. — Doc9871 07:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. - After feeling further humbled by typing before I looked, I eradicated all "Parlaphone" misspellings from the Wikipedia site, correcting it to Parlophone. Cheers...Doc9871 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc9871 (talk • contribs) (outdent) No problem on archive issue. I wanted to make sure you knew what happened so you'd watch out for similar issues in the future. You'll get the hang of Wikipedia editing soon enough; it looks more difficult than it is. I disagree with you about the McCartney/Lennon redirect. I believe it should redirect to the Lennon/McCartney page as it does now. The primary use of redirects is to capture multiple names for the same thing, and that's what we have here: there was a songwriting partnership, and it went by multiple names. Clearly, the L/M variation is the dominant of the two, and the catalog of WP articles related to the topic reflects that. On the other hand, the M/L variation was used on early material, and the convention is to follow the way the item appeared. So, for example, we show "You Really Got a Hold on Me" in the With The Beatles track list—that's how it appeared on the album—even though the actual name is "You've Really Got a Hold on Me". We show the name as it appeared on the album, and redirect to the actual page: "You Really Got a Hold on Me". There are exceptions, such as when there is conflicting evidence. We usually ignore typography and artistic variations unless there is specific evidence that the result reflects the intended name and not simply a whim by someone in the art department. Harder cases are where there is conflicting evidence, such as with "Hello, Goodbye", aka "Hello Goodbye" (no comma). Life is messy and it's not possible—or desirable—for an encyclopedia to clean it. "Love Me Do" invalidates my "simple" comment above; I forgot it was credited to L/M. A limited-run, 250 copy pressing had the credit as "Lennon-McArtrey" (note misspelling; see Lewisohn, Sessions, p. 22). As you pointed out, the "Love Me Do" label shows the L/M order. The "Please Please Me" single used the M/L order (see Lewisohn, Sessions, p. 25), and according to Lewisohn again (p. 23) that sequence was used from then until August 1963. Given the above, I'd say that "Love Me Do" ought to show the L/M order. In general, credits ought to reflect the sequence shown on the original UK release. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I'm glad you're fair and open-minded about all this, and I won't alter the M/L credit in templates anymore. I will continue to work on the issue on pages, and in ways that I'm confident that you will approve of again - just clarifying, keeping true to the facts. I absolutely agree with the original UK releases as the definitive canon, and I'm glad that Love Me Do/P.S. I Love You, reflecting the L/M single credit, is staying. The vast majority of all the Capitol releases lists "J. Lennon/P. McCartney" as the credit, but this is simply Lennon/McCartney, and shouldn't be its own redirect (at least for simplicity's sake). As long as Love Me Do & P.S. I Love You are credited as L/M due to original UK single release, the rest of the album should reflect the M/L credit - very true. We're working towards the same goal, and that is clear. P.S. - What's the best way to sign posts? Can't seem to get it quite right, being a relative greenhorn... — Doc9871 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC). You sign posts by adding 4 tildes after whatever you type. I start with an "em-dash" (personal preference), so I type this at the end of my posts: — ~~~~ ... and it looks like this: — John Cardinal (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Schweet! I still can't seem to sign right, and Sinebot keeps harassing me, but hopefully I'll get it soon. Anyhoo, Check out this webpage: (http://www.norwegianwood.org/beatles/english/maclen.html). The info on it not really referenced, and certainly not for Wikipedia, but it does sort of shed a tiny ray of light on the M/L vs. L/M credit. Doc9871 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc9871 (talk • contribs) The Beatles discography Hi, John. I was wondering might you have a look at (click-on) this, and also might you write the narrative prose for it, as you write very nicely (maybe altering somewhat of that which is currently on the discography page). Feel free to juggle about with it, even if it's on my own sandbox page. All track listings have been omitted this time round, as well as three albums that The Beatles did not give any blessings for... release: Live! at the Star-Club in Hamburg, Germany; 1962 (1977, Lingasong Records); First Live Recordings (1979, Pickwick Records); and Beatles Bop - Hamburg Days (2001, Bear Family Records). These albums also were released by rogue record companies and not by one of their "regulars". The dates for the singles I have changed to years, too. Also, I'd like to bring this to the attention of some of the veteran editors and see what they think about this, getting concensus on "updating and improving" the current listing shown. If agreeable, then we can start copying all this onto the discography page, unless someone knows how to transfer it there a really nice quick way! That would save a week's worth of work. Lastly, I have color-coded the wikitable boxes to match that of the artist infobox. I hope this bacomes the new way of creating discographies when the new decade begins in about three months. Best, --Discographer (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I think it looks good, but I do not focus on discographies much so I am not sure what my opinion is worth. For that reason, I'd rather not write the prose. Is there a specific problem with the prose there now? By the way, I like the color coding. I don't what the guidelines recommend, however, so I don't know if other editors will object. — John Cardinal (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks John, for the above comment. I was wondering if you might have another look at that, as I'm still trying to get help. Maybe you might find something that needs changed, or improved. I won't mind if you find something that needs fixed and calls for you to edit. You are one of WP's greatest editors, so I'd be glad for help from you. Thanks! best, --Discographer (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC) OK, one more comment. I'd prefer to have track listings for the "canon" albums. I am evidently in the minority on that issue. While readers can see track listings on the album articles, having them all in one place is quite useful. The various categories (Beatles songs, L/M songs, etc.) show all the songs, but the category pages are alphabetic and that loses a lot of context. The arguments against having track listings: Other featured-article discographies don't have them It makes the page longer and therefore harder to use Tracks are listed on album articles For #1, I don't care; perhaps those articles should have track listings. For #2, it does make the article longer, but I don't agree that longer always means harder to use; if the information is organized correctly, the utility of having the tracks trumps the perceived downside of making the page longer. For #3, a reader who is not familiar with the material doesn't have to hunt through multiple album articles to find a song. One way or the other, be prepared for a fight. There are people who feel strongly on both sides. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I've actually thought about putting the track-listings in for the "canon" albums. I don't see why it should be a problem, after all, I color-coded all the wikitables! I can't find anybody else in English Wikipedia who has. The Beatles truly deserve to have the best, and the rules of old need to change to new rules for this to happen... which we can make (start-up) these new rules. By us listing all the tracks just for the canon albums, actually will include all their studio songs. I'm going to ask Steelbeard 1 and if he agrees, then we'll do it. After all, I think he's the one who listed the tracks originally. See, we are on the same page John! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, John. The track listings are now in. Can you think of anything else? Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (outdent) I like the track listings, but I am not sure other people will. We'll see. I took the liberty of editing your test page and used track list templates that I created recently to make it easier to list tracks on song articles. At present, they don't include the markup to start the side 2 list at the next highest number which is one difference from what you had. We can change the templates if you think that's important. You can revert my edit if you'd rather keep the contents in the discography article, but using the templates simplifies maintenance when song articles are renamed. (Doesn't happen often, but does happen.) — John Cardinal (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I changed the track list templates to do the side 2(+) numbering so there is now no difference there. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I like it; looks good. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC) John, three of the songs show an older article page when clicked on to it. Might you want to update these, they are: "Kansas City", "Dizzy Miss Lizzy" and "All You Need Is Love" (I don't know why the word "is" is capitalised). Best, --Discographer (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info. I thought I was careful about redirects when I made the templates, but clearly I made a couple mistakes. Regarding "Is" in "All You Need Is Love", it's not short words that aren't capitalized; we don't capitalize articles (a, the) and prepositions (in, on, etc.). "Is" is a verb and so it should always be capitalized in titles. See Wikipedia:ALBUMCAPS for te full guideline. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC) That was a really good idea you had in creating the track list templates. They can be used more to protect and safe-guard the songs than anything else. We should keep a low profile on this, for safety reasons concerning the songs. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I am glad you like the idea; I considered it a long time ago but only got around to it last week. I am not sure what you mean by "safe-guarding" the songs... what needs to be protected? I did it primarily for convenience and consistency. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, John. What I was referring to about safe-guarding the song titles is that vandalising editors won't be able to easily re-direct these at their own convenience, whereas the song titles are protected from this. You're probably thinking what @#%&!. I also think that the track listings look pretty good, not sloppy or anything. Considering it is a discography, the song titles should definately be listed right there by the albums (which in this case, they actually are listed to the right of their respective album title). Oh, if you think of anything else, go ahead and do what you got to do concerning editing. This already looks better than the current discography (still in use at the moment, that is). Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC) John, I would like to ask, if it won't be any trouble, if might you be able to see if there's anything else we might need for our new discography? We may need notes and refs, though I'm unsure about this (and not quite all that good at doing that either), so I was mainly wondering if you can take care of that, please! When all this is done, can you (because I don't know how) place our "new" discography over the "old" one replacing it? I've left a note on the discography talk page talking about the new discography. John, if you do this (which I hope so), it's a lot in asking, then I'm giving you a Barnstar for all your help and support on this. You have been trendously great in working with, I don't know what to say but thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Putting in refs would be a lot of work. The basics would be easy, at least for things that are covered in easy-to-find sources such as Lewisohn's discography in the back of The Beatles Recording Sessions. I'll have a look at other discographies to see how they handle sources. My advice would be to go ahead and put your version in and then we can update it to add sources as time allows. To put your version in, just copy/paste the text from your sandbox version to the current page. You don't want to do a move or anything like that. When you paste it in, make sure to leave the existing categories, etc., that are at the bottom of the current version of the article. I can do it for you, but it's really easy ; I suspect you are thinking there is some magic to it and there isn't. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I'd rather have you do it, John, please. I'm sure it's easy, but I'd feel a lot better! Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC) OK John, when you're ready, go ahead, copy and paste. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Done. People may be confused by me editing it where it's your work. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you. Small things like that don't bother me, John. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Working Men (Rush) I know it's not much but I just thought I'd thank you for changing up the Working Men article. I've been on here for 3 years and still don't know how to make a good article lol. 4M4|Go here 13:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC) You're welcome, but I really didn't do much. I saw the article listed in a category for articles that had incorrect arguments for the {{Infobox album}} template. I fixed that and a couple other small things while I was there. The main issue with the article is a lack of content, but I know next to nothing about Rush so I can't help there. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Paul McCartney discography John, do you have templates for all of Paul's albums yet? Reason I'm asking, is because as soon as we're done with The Beatles, McCartney's discography is next (though it won't be color-coded like The Beatles). --Discographer (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Coincidentally, I just started on that. I did McCartney and Ram so far. I wasn't sure if I would do all his albums. Most do not have many song articles, so the track lists would be lightly used. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I hope you do all the track listings for his (at least his "proper") albums. Check my talk page out and read what Mike-hilal has to say about wanting to help out, on Paul McCartney, anyway. Thank! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) New Beatles discography John, Indopug reverted this again. That's twice now he's done that. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I assumed there would be disagreements about color and track lists. I think you will have a lot of trouble getting the new version in place even if you yield to those objections. It's too bad that people will accept the current version (which is a mess) rather than your version (which is a much better base to build from.) I am willing to help you improve the article to overcome those objections, for example, I am willing to spend some time on sources if that's the major objection. However, I am not going to spend a lot of time on it until there is some consensus about what it should contain. If there is a long list of objections, you'll have to take the lead on sorting them out. Those discussions—especially with editors who appear to have dug in their heels—is something I avoid like the plague. I'll express my preference and try to encourage people in the direction that I think produces a better article, but I will not take the lead and I will not bang my head against a wall for long. Sorry, but I've figured out that life is too short. — John Cardinal (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, John, I understand what you mean and I agree with you. If only all these people understood just how important track listings and B-sides are to a discography; and that canon and non-canon album material (with the exception of the core/canon albums) just don't belong as a separate section of their own. It sure is too bad that some people just don't know how to adept and accept change. Well, I guess we'll see what's going to happen. I'm going to restore it again probably tomorrow. And Monday... and Tuesday. So on. Oh, have you seen Paul McCartney's (messed-up) discography lately? I knew I shouldn't have let that Argentinian do that! I'm going to ask him to "improve" The Cure's discography! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Re: canon. I think there should be a separate section for the canon at the front. Your page had that, right? Did that get changed when I wasn't looking? After that, I'd put an integrated list of the studio albums including all countries, UK, US, Canada, etc. You had that, too, though I'd add a "country" column to that. Said another way, I don't think we need separate tables for each country except for the UK canon. If someone messed up the McCartney discography, you should revert it. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) OK. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Wow. It's bad. I am working on it now. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC) The Original Barnstar The Original Barnstar John, thank you for all your help, support, and hard work you've done on The Beatles discography (and everything else!), for you truly deserve this. It has been nice working with you on this project, and I hope we keep working together on more Beatles related projects. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Refs I see The Beatles page now has the full title of books in the ref section. Oh, well... Although I never liked it the full stops and spaces, the ref also has to have a comma after the year parentheses to comply: (2000), p. 52. Do you want to tell them, or should I? On second thoughts, I'll leave it in your capable hands, John. :)--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I only see full book titles when the author has more than one book released in the year (Harry, 2000). In that case, I think the rule is that you use a alpha character in both the citations and the references section, something like "Harry (2000a), p. 435." and "Harry (2000b), p. 67." I will have to refresh myself on how that works. I'll add a comment on the talk page, but I may not get to it until later tonight my time (US eastern). — John Cardinal (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I added a talk page note. I didn't do any research about how WP wants it done, just gave my opinion based on what I've seen. I've been staying away from The Beatles page because someone apparently owns that article now. It's hard to get a word in edgewise because there are dozens and dozens of edits every day and it's hard to see what changed when. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC) "Hey Jude" I should point out to you that film infoboxes list proper, verified writing credits, even if the credits that appear on the film itself are different. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC) What convention? It might pertain to Beatles articles, but it doesn't apply to the wider world of Wikipedia. Frankly most Beatles articles are very insular and do not take into account proceedures undertaken by other articles. As for authorship, the article states that Paul wrote it alone. It's verified in the article body. It's stated as such in the lead section. The whole reason Beatles songs were credited as "Lennon/McCartney" is because that's how their publishing was handled (I mean, "Give Peace a Chance" was a Lennon solo song, but it was still credited as "Lennon/McCartney", even though it was all John). We can verify the true facts behind the song, so we should reflect that. There's no point in misleading readers. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) That is not a good a excuse, and it does not trump Wikipedia:Verifiability. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what (so-called) excuse you mean because you refuse to keep this conversation in one place. In any case, I offered no excuses for anything, and there is credible, legal evidence to support the assertion that Lennon/McCartney wrote "Hey Jude". See the album label and the official BMI database, for example. I am done discussing this with you. You are singing a one-note song and offering no opinion about what I am concerned about. That puts you in the category of "troll" and I've fed you enough. You haven't answered any of the questions I've asked. Meanwhile, you've kept up the childish back-and-forth between talk pages despite being asked to do it differently. I can only assume you are doing that to annoy me because (like the rest of the things I've mentioned) you didn't do what I asked and you didn't offer a reason why. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC) That proposed merger I notice the merger proposal for The Beatles in 1968 -> The Beatles: the studio years has received no comments since it was raised on 1 September. As you made this earlier comment on the talk page when material from the 1968 article appeared in the other, it occurs to me that you might want to either comment on the merger or perform it, excluding whatever you deem unsuitable. PL290 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Tags on Macca's discography John, might we be able to remove Smackbot's tags without causing any trouble? Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Which ones? Do you mean the "mergefrom" notices? I'm not sure how those are supposed to be resolved. I'm reticent to change anything related to those pages right now because I've asked a question on the music project about where to list the details that aren't allowed in discographies. If they stick to the current practice--almost no release details for singles--then I'm going to reduce the details in the article and move them to list pages. If you want to remove those notices, go ahead. Are you planning to do any work on that article? I did some cleanup but I'm not really a discog guy... — John Cardinal (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC) You do a really great job on discographies, John, and I still need you to work with me on these, please! (Although there isn't too much to work on.) Also, I was going to change the country names info from, ex: UK (United Kingdom) to UK (UK singles chart). That's all I was going to do. For The Beatles discography, I think we're done now until information for The Beatles in Mono, Mono Masters, The Beatles Stereo Box Set and Past Masters comes in concerning final peak positions and certifications. My only struggle with this concerns the album The Early Beatles, as it can be either studio or compilation. Certifications are done, since the UK's BPI did not start until April 1973. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC) The Beatles discography Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Okay, John, it's nominated. Please click on this link and show your support for the nomination. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I have withdrawn the nomination for now, John. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Connection to JFK's and Lennon's deaths You should not need be reminded again of how this blatantly inappropriate section does NOT belong on the All My Loving page. It cannot be truly "referenced" at all, as it is mere coincidence, and has no place here. Opinionated speculation at best. Let's admit you're totally right: the song was released the day JFK died, and a TV producer heard the same song playing at some point on the same day in the same hospital where Lennon died in 1980. So what??? This establishes a "connection" between the deaths of JFK and John Lennon somehow? And this has a place on this page?! I'm deleting it again. We're going to have to take this upward, I'm afraid; be prepared to state your case very clearly to the administration... Doc9871 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) You really ought to tone down your comments on talk pages and your edit summaries. There's no need to be so aggressive. Don't discuss what I may or may not need reminding about, don't give me advice about what to tell the "administration", etc. Instead, argue your case by making comments about the edits and not about the editors. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not making comments about you, but your edit. And no one should have to be reminded of why this entry doesn't belong there, because it's just common sense. The edit is not written well. It establishes a connection that cannot possibly be verified, and hence shouldn't be on Wikipedia. The coincidence of a Beatles song playing in the hospital belongs on the Death of John Lennon page, not here. And the JFK thing... well, I don't even know where to begin. I wasn't threatening you about the administration getting involved, but one editor should not hold a page hostage with erroneous entries. Not sure why this is such a sticking point, but I have no problems with you, just some of your edits and their resistance to positive change... Doc9871 (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Your comment above does talk about me: "You should not need be reminded", "Let's admit your totally right", "Be prepared to state your case". Note that despite your comment, ("I have no problems with you, just some of your edits"), the original edit was not mine. Like a lot of WP content, the whole section is probably a mish-mash from multiple editors. I may have cited the hospital room part; I vaguely recall doing that. I don't favor keeping it exactly as it was, but you deleted content that I think belongs in the article. Calling it stupid, which you did in your talk page entry ("Reference it any way you want, it's just too damned stupid to be here"), is insulting to me and anyone else who thinks it belongs in the article and makes me want to avoid working with you. While I'm at it, your edit summaries are troublesome. Most editors—me included—are occasionally guilty of inappropriate edit summaries or talk page comments. In my opinion, you have more than your fair share. You use an aggressive, spoiling-for-a-fight tone ("Please, challenge this one..."), accuse people of nonsense and set yourself up as the authority ("This sort of nonsense won't be tolerated..."), make inappropriate demands of other editors ("Notice your own spelling errors within a day or two please..."), insult other editors ("Written less like a five-year old, but still unreferenced."), etc. No one will get blocked for such comments, but they don't seem in the spirit of WP:Civility and they set off warning bells for me. Please note where we are now, and how we got there. Patthedog and I had a civil discussion on the "All My Loving" talk page and quickly came to an informal agreement to remove the JFK thing, drop the section title, etc. The hospital room information is on the page, but it's poorly placed, partly because the article structure is flawed. You are the only one arguing for the removal of the hospital part, but other editors wanted to retain it and it's cited, so it stays, at least for now. Meanwhile, your comments were hostile and didn't help resolve anything. Your hostile tone reduces your entry to "blah, blah, blah" for me; after the first sentence or two, I don't even want to read it and I certainly don't give any weight to any logical argument that might be buried in the insults. You think aggression prompts action, but that's not the whole story. Aggression might prompt action, but it also wastes time as other editors have to read useless, insulting comments. Wikipedia encourages people to be bold, and that's a better way to prompt action. Make the edit, describe your edit (not the edits or editors that preceded you), and leave it at that. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) I'm slightly flattered that my edit history was scrutinized like this. The "warning bells" should have been quickly silenced by the edits themselves, not the comments surrounding them. "Don't Stop Believin'" was never "Don't Stop Believing", a bear pit faced the brutalized prisoners at Buchenwald, and two founding Eagles members got shafted because they quit. These are the edits I fight for, and I don't worry about "tone" when correcting them. I have insulted no editor (especially by name) in any entry I have made. Perceived insults to edits are not actual insults to an editor (e.g. "Editor X, you, sir, are a baboon!") If I feel an edit is "stupid", I am allowed to say this. If I want to call a specific editor "stupid" (which I never have), then I'm being uncivil. As I've said several times before, I have no problem with you as an editor, and I admire your tenacity. I appreciate your suggestions concerning my candor, and they are duly noted. The next time our edits conflict, we will hopefully resolve them in a more civil and less time-consuming manner. Peace... Doc9871 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC) P.S.: "Meanwhile, your comments were hostile and didn't help resolve anything." Tsk, tsk... The JFK "stuff" is gone, isn't it ;> Doc9871 (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Never mind the “Tsk, tsk…” stuff, your comments were hostile and the JFK reference issue could have been resolved without them. Firing from the hip, as you do, does not create a conducive ambience. Peace.--Patthedog (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Chiming in with another voice here... noticed all this developing at the song's talk page and want to add an opinion. Doc9871, you're echoing what you said earlier on that talk page: "My 'tone' is what it is, and being aggressive is what get things done"—I would ask you to reconsider that statement. As intelligent human beings we have a choice about our tone—all the more so when writing—and being aggressive is by no means always the best way to get things done and can be counterproductive. I won't insult you by referring you to Wikipedia:Civility which you're no doubt aware of, but Patthedog's right: the result obtained was despite your approach, not because of it. These are very reasonable people you're dealing with. PL290 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Page numbers Yes this is a slight oddity. I created {{Page numbers}} to deal with this , it can be inserted as a wrapper in whatever cite templates might find it beneficial. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC). Should be OK now. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC). JD554's edits I think we should gang up an JD554 and let the 3RR rule take its course with his edits to the Hey Jude article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Well, I don't want to gang up on anyone, but I do appreciate some support on the writer= infobox field, and I'll continue to watch it. As you probably know from watching my edits and my talk-page comments, I feel strongly that the infobox should show the non-controversial, easily-verifiable official/legal credit. The article prose can cover the less certain evidence of who (primarily) wrote it. "Hey Jude" is just the tip of the iceberg, and while the disagreement there is relatively tame, other songs would inspire edit wars that would never end. JD554 is not the only editor who wants it changed, but I think he is part of a small minority. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Mull of Kintyre (song) The lyrics of the line that you just edited break in an unusual way. Both in rythm and in rhythm, as sung, there are significant breaks in the line. As it's actually sung, the lyrics work like this: Mull of Kintyre / Oh mist rolling in from the sea My desire / Is always to be Here / Oh Mull of Kintyre. The word "Here" is very clearly broken from the previous word to poetic/rhythmic effect, and to allow the two rhymes to stand out. How should that best be shown in the article? FT2 (Talk | email) 04:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC) I think it's hard to capture the song via text, so my inclination would be to show it the way it appears on a lyric site, i.e., put the words together using natural English boundaries. If you feel strongly that it ought to be done differently, change it to suit your preference. — Lennon/McCartney credits. I see you are having a running battle with a user over this matter. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Award The Information Management Barnstar Thank you for the work you did to improve The Beatles timeline by envisioning and implementing a template-based solution. PL290 (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Notability and English sources FYI. I'm trying to start a discussion closely related to the issue you raised at WT:V#Disallow or severely restrict foreign language sources here: WT:N#Are English sources required for notability?. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC) The Barnstar of Diligence Great job tracking down that ip-hopping disruptor and presenting the case concisely on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Not WP:LEAD Per the content of the lead, which mentions that Rolling Stone ranked four Beatles albums among the ten greatest of all time. The Rolling Stone ranking for each of those four has been included in the article. On reflection, I think it's reasonable to stop there, rather than give the RS ranking for every single Beatles album. DocKino (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) The Supremes timeline John, let's start this! After all, They were #2 only to The Beatles back in the 1960s. Come on! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I've got a soft-spot in my heart for the Supremes, but I don't have the sources for them, and more importantly, I don't have the time for another Wiki project. I spend a lot of time defending the Beatle articles from vandalism, cleaning up after careless edits, etc. That will have to do.... Sorry! — John Cardinal (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Can you at least set it up, the page template and format, please? I can get Brotha Timothy (main Supremes contributor) for all the dates and sources. Please, John! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I can copy the Beatle timelines for the Supremes. Is there a timeline page for the Supremes now? Is there a use for a "LOC" column, or would most events be in the USA? — John Cardinal (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I tried creating the page earlier, but it got wiped out because all I had on it was "Hi1" (I forgot it's an article page). The talk page I created is still there. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC) It would be USA and UK only, John. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (outdent) OK, the templates now exist: Template:The Supremes timeline event Template:The Supremes timeline rule Template:The Supremes timeline table start For locations, I left it the same as for The Beatles, except I changed the default from UK to US. People won't specify "loc=GER" so it won't matter that it's supported. That keeps the two templates very similar and will make it easier if I need to make changes to both (if someone finds a bug that's present in both, for example). I wonder if this will catch on (timeline articles that use a similar table layout) and if so, that might mean more general (non-Beatles, non-Supremes) templates should be made. Also, I am planning to change {{The Beatles timeline event}} to include what {{The Beatles timeline rule}} does. If/when I do that, I'll fix the Supremes version, too. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks a lot John! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Unsourced quite tremolo-effected 6 string bass Hi Sir, do you really need a "source" to appreciate the bass tremolo in this song? Your ears aren't enough? Please, even if you aren't an instrument expert (in spite of the fact you should be a Beatles expert according to your wikipedia editing activity), do open your left ear (the bass is in the left channel) to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKofpYFka6Y&feature=related at 0:56 and following; then the tremolo is no more used, until it re-appears at 2:43. Finally, the fact that the bass is a 6 strings... was already written and sourced in the voice itself! Please let me understand your strategy: If I'd edit in the "Revolution" voice that the guitar is overdriven, would you remove it because of unsourced edit?! It would be a "LOL", so please, put back my small innocent useful correct edit into Rocky Raccoon, don't you? *** I have an italian wikipedia account, "Djdani", I don't know how to log in the english wikipedia, so i can't sign this comment, sorry. Djdani