User talk:Espoo/Archive 2
The BeatlesPlease stop making edits like this. First of all, their name as "The Beatles" is one of the mostly universally accepted spellings in the universe. Look at their albums. Look at Ringo's first drum kit: The Beatles. And secondly, your link doesn't work, and Rolling Stone uses "The Beatles". Please stop this kind of editing. Ward3001 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE --- CEASE EDIT WARRINGYou currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Beatles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Ward3001 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Don't be ridiculous; you're the one who started the edit war and without anything except your opinion to try to discredit the reputable sources provided. You're confusing graphic layout decisions with official spelling. --Espoo (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Rock music WikiProjectI'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Stutter, stutter, BeatlesOK... When it is alright to say "I like Beatles", or when someone says the project should be called "Beatles' Project", or even when anybody says that "Beatles were John, Paul, George, and Ringo", I will accept it. Personally, to say "I like Beatles" (meaning the whole group) makes me feel sick.--andreasegde (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) The TheExamples of the uppercase definitive article (The): On TV and radio: Bands: Of course, if you have a foreign name like Los Lobos (The Wolves) or Los Super Seven, it's OK...
Newspapers:
Other links:
Could you please give some quotations in running text in reliable sources to see which if any of these have an uppercase The elsewhere than at the beginning of a line or in old-style UK headings, Where Everything Used To Be Capitalised, Even Prepoisitions In The Middle (and in UK song titles)? --Espoo (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC) For example, the National Gallery does not use uppercase in running text: "The site occupied by the National Gallery..."[1], "How can I find out if a particular painting is in the National Gallery?", "How can I find a painting's location in the National Gallery?", "Where can I look if the work I am interested in is not in the National Gallery's collection?", "What research facilities are available for the public at the National Gallery?", "Can I sketch at the National Gallery?", "Can I take photographs or use a video camera in the National Gallery?", "Where does the National Gallery advertise its vacancies?", "Could I work as a volunteer or undertake work experience at the National Gallery?", "Could I send my curriculum vitae to the National Gallery speculatively?", "If I am not a United Kingdom or European Economic Area national could I still work at the National Gallery?"[2], and many more on this page. --Espoo (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC) re: "incorrect capitalisation"What is the point of your message on my talk page? I hope you're not looking to re-relaunch that old battle. Zephyrad (talk) 06:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Zephyrad and Lukobe, I can understand very well that you don't want to spend more than about 1 more minute on this old problem, but by alerting the people at MOS to my summary of reliable sources (already done) and by you and others adding a short comment, we actually have a fairly good chance of getting a policy based on reliable sources, i.e. professional standards, and without any lengthy or immature discussions. So, please honor all the time you spent on this in the past and my time spent mostly summarising those efforts by adding a short comment at WP:MOS talk that simply states what you think about my compilation of reliable sources. You may also want to add the same 2 lines at Talk:The_Beatles#Discussion of reliable sources using "the Beatles" or "The Beatles". I spent a few hours arguing with people on that talk page who simply ignored the reliable sources I quoted and then even the huge list I compiled (some of whom may have been the same that outyelled you), so I can now see why it doesn't make sense to argue and discuss with them. But the massive evidence in my list and simple statements about what this shows cannot and will not be ignored by the people deciding on general policy at WP. The simple big difference is that the/The looks like something pretty unimportant even to people at MOS, and they didn't have the time and energy to read through the old endless discussions to find the evidence, but now it's in a list that can be digested easily in a few minutes.--Espoo (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Good luck, Espoo. You are on the side of the angels (verifiability, etc.), but irrationality appears to rule the day in Wikiland. The whole exercise basically turned me off being a regular editor.McTavidge (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks, McTavidge. I had similar experiences before and almost stopped being an editor myself. I believe there is a fairly simple solution to this biggest problem of irrationality in WP: requiring the establishment of a similar list of reliable sources that is separate from the discussion. No matter how long or loud defenders of positions without basis in reliable sources yell, this does not affect the total and relative importance of collected reliable sources. --Espoo (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC) CanvassingPlease read WP:CANVAS. Notifying editors about a discussion is not a problem. Using a heading with non-neutral wording ("incorrect capitalisation") to do so is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Just a friendly reminder to avoid problems. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't canvassed; I wonder why? :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe because you were too busy going through the names that disagreed with "The" on the policy page, perhaps? (Even non-active participants, BTW). Only a thought, you understand... :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
VandalismDo NOT BTW, I understand that you would like to convince everyone that your proposal is correct, but do not resort to vandal tactics. Having TWO polls is confusing and silly.--andreasegde (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry you feel it's silly, but I explained the difference between the two. And I'm sorry you felt I was vandalising by striking out your words, but you must admit your words made it impossible to find the poll directions. --Espoo (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
|