Hello JG. It's alright. I'm looking foward to reading the tour article. What would you say is the best top 3 George books? I've seen some good, bad, and downright completely wrong ones. Also, if you've heard the album, what's your opinion on Early Takes: Volume 1? Yep, I'm keeping well. I hope you had a good Christmas and a good new year's eve. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 18:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG. I always love a good paragaph (or few). I recall reading somewhere that Vol 2 is in the works (which is, from what I've read, also one of the reasons of the belated remastering of DH and Ex Text). Nice idea on the playlist. I've got the album on vinyl (what other format?), I think it's pretty good, nice mix of demos and alt takes. I love the demo of ATMP, very intimate (more so, I thought, than the Anthol 3 and the GB/LIB boot versions).
I think I've got Leng's book somwhere (my books are in more of a mess than my record collection). I don't like books which from the title and the blurb you'd think it would dedicate a considerable part of the book to who the title and blurb are refering to, but they didn't (like, I found a book with the title and the blurb talking about Syd Barrett, but when I flicked through it, his solo years were talked about on only two(!) pages). The books you've mentioned sound like quite the opposite. I find that books are more enjoyable to read if they've got more background on a certain time/place (like you said, Clayson has history on Friar Park that I would probably love to read). I can't remember which ones specifically, I think one was called Life and Times of George Harrison (or something like that?). I've got Schaffner's Floyd book, I wouldn't expect anything different (I mean, apart from the subject matter of course) of the quality of his work. I'm following Rodriguez's Fab Four FAQ 2.0 Facebook page, and from the info on a few posts alone, I'd say his book has got to be a must have. I've had the pleasure of reading a few chapters of Goldman's book, he bashes Lennon in every attempt he can, if from what you've read about Giuliano's book is true, I'd say it's not worth looking for.
I don't mind the long messages, always good to read. There's a bot you can get for your talk to automatically archive messages after a certain amount of days/months, if you want it. Personally, I prefer to manually archive yearly. Do you have any plans of taking the articles you've already made to GA, to FA? Best, yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG. Nah, I was gonna reply sooner, but I got the flu (not man flu) and was stuck to my phone. I only go for vinyl when I'm at home, when I'm out and about, however, I'm listening to all the guys' (and other bands...) complete discographies on my phone. I don't mind the odd playlist from time to time, but I can never come up with a playlist I actually like after finishing assembling it. Yea, I thought it might have been that book, I hate books like those. The time consuming part is a fair point about not going for it, but on the other hand, you never know. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison FAC
Thanks for your insightful comments there. I also noticed that you are now adding material to the article. Thanks much. I can tell you are extremely knowledgeable about Harrison so I'm sure any additions you make will help us and the article succeed at FAC. Cheers! GabeMc(talk|contribs)21:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've just reviewed the article and it seems to be very good, so should pass with no problems. I've asked for a second opinion just to check things like punctuation and images, but as long as that comes back ok it'll be fine. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Sorry, I did not notice your reply since I always receive a bunch of notices. There were a bot edit and some vandalism, so I totally missed your edit. I would like to continue working with you. Regards.--Tomcat(7)20:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG. You're welcome, always good to see a new Harrisong article to read. You never know about "Maya Love": you say it's not worthy of a B now, but it could be GA one day. Thanks, I sorta drifted away from the Beatles fold when I was working on Pink Floyd GAs, so I thought I'd return to my musical roots, sorta to speak. Congratz on getting ATMP to GA. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I've reviewed the two oldest George Harrison GANs from December, and popped them on hold. There don't seem to be any problems, so once yeepsi's checked them out I'll pass them. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright JG. Congratz on two more great articles. The category can appear on one's user page by either: adding it directly from the categories bar/editing it into the page at the bottom (which is what I presume you did, looking at your page), or by adding the User Good Article template (which is what I have, hidden within the user infobox). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 20:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG. How's it going? I've reviewed "IHYA" for GA. It mostly looks great, but I have a handful of concerns I'd like you to address. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Khazar2, thanks for that, and for your compliment above! I've written a reply on the review page re the situation with images (or lack of). Cheers, JG66 (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GabeMc, that's very sweet of you! I do want you and Evan to get this article through to FA - I really don't know why our communication repeatedly fails, but it seems it does. I'll help where I can, if it's wanted, but I can see that article length is starting to be a problem, judging by recent comments at the FAC. I'll come back with a list of points to support the changes I made. I just worry that, after I've pushed to include discussion on the 1974 tour and a section on his production and session work, something important's going to have to be removed from the article when really, IMO, subtle cullings like the one I proposed might be the way to save each and every section ... (Wow, isn't that just like me: came here to thank you for the beer and ended up writing a whole paragraph!!) Cheers most sincerely JG66 (talk) 04:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tb
Hello, JG66. You have new messages at GabeMc's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry, but since you have given us absolutely zero indication that you are at all near satisfied, and since your comments keep coming and coming despite numerous supports from trusted reviewers, there is just no end in sight with you. I never thought you would support, but I did my very best to reach-out to you anyway. I extended the olive branch as best I could, but you just kept coming at us. FWIW, IMO, Casliber and Malleus' concerns were based largely on your use of the article as a WP:COATRACK, i.e. adding countless disconnected datums is what broke the narrative in the first place, and your requests to rearrange and break the chronology are disrespectful to the many editors who have helped at the FAC. GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GabeMc – "zero indication"? What about: "I do want you and Evan to get this article through to FA ... I'll help where I can, if it's wanted, but I can see that article length is starting to be a problem, judging by recent comments at the FAC." – all now removed from your talk page. What about this on 8 April: "I think the article is now closer to delivering a more rounded and educational overview on Harrison with the latest changes. Much of this is down to an apparently more generous attitude towards the subject." ? I was away from home for two weeks but made of a point of logging in during that time rather than hold up progress in the FAC. It just seems with every effort I've made, going back to January, I end up wishing I hadn't bothered. You did offer the olive branch, and that was most gracious, and I said as much. I haven't been "coming at you"; there were many points I picked up while going through the article for the final time, simple as that. I totally disagree with the Coatrack claim; in the case of the 1974 tour, for instance, I was pushing for the removal of text (from Leng's book) that supplied an example of favourable critical response in 1974. Similarly, I was all for the briefest of comment on critical response (good or bad) for each album, as per the single sentence afforded Thirty Three & 1/3. On the other hand, I think you're wrong to remove this point about Harrison's standing post-Bangladesh; rather than the author's OR, Eder's quote provides a general picture of observations made by many writers, eg Schaffner (pp 147–48: "Aside from enhancing George's reputation as the real hero to emerge from the wreckage of the Beatles ..."; p. 159: "The surprise triumphs of ATMP and the magnanimous Bangla Desh concert, album and film were fresh in the public's mind [in 1973], and contrasted sharply with fiascos as Wild Life and Some Time in New York City ..."). I love the peaks and the troughs in Harrison's career – they all add to the interest of the wider picture.
You imply that unlike the other editors at the FAC, I've not helped in improving this article – well, you can roll with that if it sits comfortably. I know exactly where my input has lifted the piece, I'm not bothered about whether it's acknowledged or not. Perhaps they've not been "coming at you" because they're not as knowledgeable about Harrison, I don't know – it's just a guess. This article will be promoted to FA very soon, I could feel that coming before I went away, which is why I tried to squeeze in my comments quick-smart. (On an iPad that drove me crazy; with only one or two books to hand.) Good luck, because you and Evan deserve the FA now, no question. I just don't understand why it has to be so unpleasant when someone points out many issues with the article's text, nor why you're so loath to admit, even once, that misunderstanding on your part has contributed just as heavily to the tedious discussion under my name in both FACs. JG66 (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Even though it was difficult for us to communicate at times, your comments were a huge help in helping us get the article to Featured status. The article is much improved for it, and I really am glad we had your input. Thanks! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)09:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Thanks (as usual)
Hello JG. You're welcome. I had previously posted personal information (which, looking back now, wasn't such a good idea as it seemed at the time), so I asked for my user page to be deleted. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Images, images
Hello JG. Yeah, I'm good. You're welcome, about the B rates. The images don't necessarily have to be of low quality – just less than 350px by 350px to be considered fair use. Though, if they're over that than low res does help them stay as fair use. I think they're okay, I'm not sure how well they would appear on a square monitor (<- I can check this later today) as I've got a widescreen monitor. Sometimes if an image doesn't appear/change hitting refresh would usually fix (I can see it in the article). IMO, I feel the Bangla Desh picture sleeve you've uploaded is harder to read than the original. Hope this helps! Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 11:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've went around clicking on the link (contrib history) and compared with the article, and the image still appears the same to me. Probably is the old file that's wrong, a new titled one might work, I'm not sure what to do if the new one has the same problem. Btw, hope you don't mind me fixing some of the issues at the Frankie Crisp GAN. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the system itself—it can be quite laggy at times—which might explain what caused the image to appear correctly. I think the reason for what happened to file in the link you provide was because of this template [[File:.jpg|px]] was being used in the |Cover = parameter instead of the file size in its own parameter | image_size = I think its called. I don't understand what exactly you meant by: "leave alone what are obvious suggestions (as opposed to points concerning GA requirements). Otherwise there's a feeling, as the nom, that what were simply well-reasoned suggestions are now set in stone, with all discussion over"? (Don't worry, I didn't take offense or anything, I just don't get what you mean.) Wiki helps me get away from the wah-wah of real life, from time to time. The waffling's quite alright. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lag has been worse (not the image lag per se, but rather the lag for a lot of tools on the toolserver): one time the lag was so bad that it stretched to nearly a whole month(!) back. Pretty good images—I mean, for record labels, they're good. I understand what you mean now JG, thanks for the clarification. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ballad of Sir Frankie Crisp (Let It Roll)
Hi. I was just taking a look at WP:GAN and noticed that you had nommed this back in February. It's a pretty good article, in the non-technical sense at least, and shouldn't take more than a few tweaks before I'd be glad to vouch for that status officially. If it's alright with you, I wouldn't at all mind giving it a review, but if you'd rather wait for someone else to come along, I would completely understand. Just let me know! Evanh2008(talk|contribs)15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Evan. Please, go right ahead! I'd almost forgotten about that article actually, and there's such a backlog of noms right now, so it's great that someone's prepared to take it on. I might just give it another read now as well ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great! I've started the review page with a few notes on what I think could be improved. I haven't used one of those tables that checks the article against each of the criteria, as I basically feel it meets all of them, with just a few issues regarding prose and clarity still outstanding. It's technically on hold for a week now, but I'm in no hurry, so take as long as you need. Evanh2008(talk|contribs)16:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Mind/Walls/Ram
Mind Games release date
Hello JG. I got the Mind Games October '73 release date from John Blaney's John Lennon: Listen to This Book which I found out to be quite rich in information, but a bit off with some release dates. Let's see what we've got so far...
29 October (Blaney)
31 October (Spizer)
2 November (Badman, Castleman & Podrazik)
Ray Coleman's Lennon: Definitive Biography, while it doesn't have a US release date, it does have the UK date as 16 Nov. The booklet/small newspaper John Lennon: A Legend, which doesn't list a writer/author of any kind, has a release date of simply November – no mention of country. Tim Hill and Marie Clayton's The Beatles: A Photographical Journey of the Fab Four doesn't have anything in the main text, but in a chronology section the date is given as 2 Nov for both the album and the single, and also for Ringo. Another just November date is given in Richard Buskin's John Lennon: His Life and Legend. I think it's safe to assume the 16 Nov date is correct for the UK release of MG. Tallying up...
29 October (Blaney, Madinger & Easter)
31 October (Spizer)
2 November (Badman, Castleman & Podrazik, Hill & Clayton)
November (A Legend, Buskin, Schaffner)
^ (I'll update this when I can get to some more books) ^
* you can add: November 1973 for US release in Schaffner (i.e. in back-of-book UK and US discography sections). JG66 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* also (frustratingly!): 29 October (Madinger & Easter)
FWIW, for this sort of an issue, I'd put greater faith in a book specialising in dates and discographies than I would in biographies. Badman's Diary has its share of mistakes, admittedly; Castleman & Podrazik's book is a detailed discography, pure and simple. I'd similarly trust Spizer's book – it's a detailed compilation of all the solo Beatles' releases – but of course he contradicts what Badman and C&P have to say. JG66 (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't hurt to get some more opinions, I guess. From my point of view, the confusing thing is that two books I'd normally consider absolutely spot-on for issues such as dates (Castleman & Podrazik and Spizer) aren't in agreement! Madinger & Easter is a super-thorough work, but I've been surprised once or twice by release dates they give in discographies/appendices. Personally, I'd go with 2 November for now and make a point of taking it project-wide sometime soon. (Then again, I am devoted to the gospel according to Castleman & Podrazik ...) Best, JG66 (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know the sources for all barring one point (Jagger's wedding) you said there, so that's a big help. D'you thing "Feud" section is worth splitting into "Background" and the "Release" sections? Any suggestions on info (especially background) are most welcome. I'm quite useless when it comes to trying to think of what to include in a background section. (On Two Virgins, for example, it took me a while to realise when/where Lennon and Ono met would be important to that particular article.) Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the suggestions so far! (I'm probably not wrong in thinking there's lots more details to come.) I'll get to work on Ram soon-ish. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lag
I'm not sure if this is happening to you as well JG, but I tried to read your latest message on my wall and the page won't load anymore than:
"Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9? I am wondering whether you think all of the indicated acc" from the Socks and more socks message on my wall.
Hello JG. You're quite right about Ram being a bit far off from GA quality – I'm going to remove the nom now. I had been meaning to expand the "Content" section greatly, but I kept forgetting and had been distracted working on some other articles. I should probably wait until—and possibly improve—my current noms are done before I nom anything else (is it bad I nom'd twomore, after just a few days work on them?). Thanks for all the help so far. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been observing with mild bemusement your interactions with GabeMc, both on "Sue Me, Sue You Blues" and GabeMc's talk page. While you clearly won't avoid editing the same articles due to your intersecting topic interests, I'm requesting that you stop leaving messages on his talk page in the interest of peace and harmony. It's clear that your messages are unwelcome, and I'm not entirely sure why you've persisted leaving said messages after his request that you stop. If you have issues with his article edits, outline them on the appropriate article talk page. From what I've seen, your disagreements with him boil down to subjective content and wording issues. You need to hash these out without leaving messages on his talk page. If you find him unwilling to discuss content disputes on article talk pages, follow dispute resolution steps outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Again, there is absolutely no reason you need to leave personal talk page messages regarding article content disputes. In fact, doing so hurts other interest contributors because they aren't privy to such content discussions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good topic
I've been looking at your George Harrison-related work with great interest. Have you thought about aiming towards a Good topic where Harrison is concerned? Perhaps where an album and all of its notable tracks are at least GA, or maybe where all of his studio albums are at least GA and his discography page is a featured list? You seem to be capable. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Have you ever thought about converting either of your GAs into FAs? I'd consider biting the bullet sometime and doing so, providing you have the time and patience to respond to the concerns of several reviewers. What I tend to do is pinpoint which reviewers tend to review album / song related articles at FAC, and ask them to post a review on my talk page, judging the article against FA criteria. Mind you, I haven't worked on articles or nominated anything for awhile. My four FAs came from, believe it or not, work mostly done over a four day period. There were of course touch ups afterwards.
Where a GT goes (a Good topic), you may not know it but in my opinion you're two GA articles away from one with The Concert for Bangladesh. If that was the main article of a Good topic, I feel the sub-articles would possibly be Bangla Desh (song), The Concert for Bangladesh (album), The Concert for Bangladesh (film), and The Day the World Gets 'Round. So that's 3/5. If the last two were GA as well, you're more or less 99.9% guaranteed a successful Good topic nomination. A Good topic has to have at least three articles / lists (or a mixture of articles / lists), one of those being the main piece of course. What might happen is the two song articles being discounted for a Good topic, with the remaining three forming a Good topic. So either three will make up one, or the five including the two songs. Me personally, to make it a formality I would nominate as a five-piece (once the last two are GA). Sorry for waffling on, lol. LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of respect for you editing articles by The Beatles, because usually with more popular articles you have to contend with what you feel are detrimental edits. I'm lucky in that regard, because nobody bothers with heavy metal too much. Thanks for the compliments about the featured topic, but it's quite minimal in comparison to your Harrison-related contributions. As you get more Harrison-related GAs, if you have any Good topics they might get merged together as happened with mine (without my knowing, which annoyed me). If you ever need help where FA goes, give me a bell. Believe it or not, it's more patience than time you need really. You just need to be willing to breeze through a list of reviewer concerns, which I find doesn't take as long as writing the article in the first place. Look at the two song articles I have as FA. Be honest with yourself; do you genuinely feel they are superior to the song GAs you've written? They aren't. Give it a bash. The only thing I've noticed is your articles don't have sound samples, which might be something to think about. LuciferMorgan (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Ringo songs
Hello JG. You're welcome about the Bs. I find the Ringo articles much easier to work on, as you said "there's so little information to wade through", as there isn't much in terms of number of sources to add (unlike there is for the other three). I'm not sure why, but these past few days I've dived head-first into several Ringo articles (despite only hearing "I'm the Greatest", "You and Me (Babe)", and a few off Vertical Man, so far this year). I love the stereo effect with the headphones, the way the instruments (especially the horns) are set out. Apparently there's artwork for a Quadraphonic issue of the album ([1]), but the album wasn't mixed in Quad. If "You and Me (Babe)" is amazing as it is in stereo, imagine a Quad (or even 5.1) version, now that would be interesting to hear. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG. Despite no Ringo Quad, the elusive Goodnight Vienna Quad (likewise with John's Imagine) escapes my clutches. I don't mind about Boogaloo, feel free to tackle it. My possible GAs list is quite literally ever-growing now (one main reason being is that I'm getting into more and more artists this past few months), so the two Ringo (and other) articles that were on my user page have been pushed down the queue. Thanks for the compliment, I just wish the album (or rather, the second side) was as good as the article. BTW, re:the Badman cites, I was using an online version of the book which didn't have any page numbers, so all the ref numbers went to the one cite. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. If you ever come across the Bonnie quote, is it possible you could send it my way? I think it could be a good addition to the Some Time in New York article. I prefer Boogaloo over a number of Starr's later singles (80s–now), but comparing it to Starr's 70s efforts I'd say 1978's "Wings" (as much as an odd choice it may seem) and "Easy" are above it. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 10:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JG, you're a big help. As separate pieces I prefer the 70s singles, but as part of an album I think the 80s–now stuff works a lot better (Vertical Man, IMO, is a good example). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to adding a Keltner quote to the drumming section, but it would have to be swapped in for another, as I feel that the section already relies a bit too heavily on quotes. If you have a good Keltner quote in mind and a suggestion for which one to remove I would be grateful to make the change. GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gabe. The Keltner issue was always something I was happy to address somewhere down the line actually, on the talk page, even though I raised it in the FAC. (I'm really glad you agree about including something on him; have to admit, as a musician, I'm massively retro when it comes to drummers: Jims Gordon & Keltner, Levon Helm, etc. I guess that's another reason why the amount of text given over to Steve Smith jars with me a bit!)
I'll have to dig around when I've got more time, which is likely to be a while away yet. Off the top of my head, I'd say Rodriguez is a good place to start re the pairing of Ringo and Keltner; then I'm pretty sure Keltner comes up with something quotable in his interview for Concert for Bangladesh Revisited; could be in Peter Lavazzoli's interview with him, too ... I'll have to get back to you. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience during the review. I'm sorry if you thought I was being excessively picky or difficult, I generally try to avoid being so, but I didn't think it was crazy at all to at least mention the reference formatting. I believe it is only a very minor issue, fine for GA, but most articles I've reviewed or seen don't use full stops after every book note. I've asked Tim riley as to whether or not he knows more about it than I do, but I didn't mean to make a big thing of it at all and have passed it. I guess I like to see consistency, but I acknowledge that there is some flexibility for formatting sources on wikipedia and this probably falls well within it. I hope you at least understand why I brought it up and conducted such a review overall, usually I'm not a fussy reviewer.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no worries. If you could return the favour at some point and also review one of mine this would be good, only if you feel comfortable doing so though!♦ Dr. Blofeld10:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry if you haven't done one before, but if you contribute to GA as you do, then I think reviewing a few others every now and then helps things out. Some people don't like reviewing though, you might be one of them, so fair enough!♦ Dr. Blofeld13:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE: ATMP
You didn't expect me to read that verbose response, did you? Or expect me to accept rationale like "from all I've read about the album" (NOR)? I don't have time for editors with their claims of experience and intepretation on topics in the articles they edit (an unsurprisingly common trend) taking subtle shots at my character and forcing me to justify my changes when the edit summaries are accurate and valid. You don't agree with Rosen's interpretation, which is fine, but why bring your personal experience reading about the album into it or claim he's not entirely clear about the album--how much clearer can this be: "a collection of typically modest Harrison tunes: downhearted, folk-rock confessions." In all of your reading, have you come across anything as direct as that saying the album's songs are what you claim them to be? If so, please cite it. Otherwise, stop bugging me and acting surprised when I clean up OR-ridden prose, improvements that no one other than you has objected to. Dan56 (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is still an issue with spacing on citation 78, but it's so minor that I'm not about to hold up passing this nomination. On a personal note, you've been a great nominator to work with, and it surprises me that your GANs languish as long as they do. I'd be glad to work with you again in the future. I see you have other GANs waiting for a reviewer... on the other hand, I do currently have three other GANs open at the moment, and I've promised reviews for Elmo's World and Salt next, but as soon as I have an open slot I'll look you up. Allthebest, – Quadell(talk)14:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Billy's MSL
Hello JG. I've been good. Thanks! (Is it just me or does Beady Eye's "The Roller" sound a bit like "Instant Karma!"?) It's fine about the image, and I do get what you mean about it not looking so good. Nice sleeve from the hay-day of Apple.
No problem about the B. Sure, I don't mind joining in on the image discussion when you want me too. I really don't see what is the problem with the image to be honest.
I feel Kisses is one of those albums where you can dig a song or two on a regular day, but as a whole it works (in this case) better on a Sunday afternoon. It's not cause of the song choices, but I feel McCartney doesn't really do well with Jazz/traditional pop songs. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late jump-in to the image discussion, my internet hasn't been working properly for the past few days. But eh, better late than never, right?
Every fan is entitled to their own opinion (though, not every fan respects that). McCartney was pretty good but almost every 70s album (excluding Band on the Run and maybe Back to the Egg) I'm just thinking "Paul what on earth are you doing?". Can't really sit through them, just really the odd track here and there (McCartney II was literally a "what is this music?" moment from me). From thereon, it's mostly Flowers in the Dirt to Memory Almost Full that I can sit all the way through (Have you heard New? Bit of a let-down for me).
Hello, JG66. I'm glad my uploads helped in the articles you're working. You can acess this page to navigate through the issues. The search tool appears on the right column once you access an issue, but it doesn't work very well (it didn't find the ad on the Dec. 14 issue, even if it is there). If you have more questions feel free to ask. Cheers, --viniciusmc21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have these magazines, I usually search Billboard's online archive manually, take a screenshot of the page I want using the print screen command, paste it into Photoshop and edit the image to crop the borders and do some minor adjustments. Here is the Concert for Bangladesh ad, do you want me to upload the others you mentioned? --viniciusmc03:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm happy to help in my free time. Here are the ads:
For your contributions to bring Let It Down to Good Article status. Thanks for bringing this to such high quality before nominating that it needed almost no further work--your articles are always a pleasure to read! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to My Sweet Lord may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
.</ref><ref>[http://www.georgeharrison.com/mwf/main.html "Material World Charitable Foundation" > About], georgeharrison.com (retrieved 29 October 2013).</ref> set up by Harrison in April 1973.<
200969-0872.pdf Swedish Charts 1969–1972/Kvällstoppen – Listresultaten vecka för vecka > Mars 1971] (in Swedish), hitsallertijden.nl (retrieved 13 February 2013).</ref>
Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]<ref name="Billboard_atmp">{{cite web|title=All Things Must Pass > Charts & Awards > Billboard Singles|publisher=|url={{Allmusic|class=album|id=r8992/charts-awards/billboard-single|
|Canadian Singles Chart<ref name="Billboard_GH">{{cite web|title=George Harrison > Charts & Awards > Billboard Singles|publisher=|url={{Allmusic|class=artist|id=p4444/charts-awards/billboard-singles|
* Joseph Murrells, ''[http://books.google.com.pe/books?id=UxRAAAAAMAAJ&q=%22my+sweet+lord+(%22 The Book of Golden Discs]'' (2nd edn), Barrie & Jenkins (London, 1978; ISBN 0-214-20480-4).
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Timeshitf9". The reason given for Timeshitf9's block is: " Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ".
Accept reason: I don't think there is an autoblock in place; shortly after this request was placed, you edited my talk page. Further, something looks odd, if it reported 127.0.0.1 as the blocked IP. Finally, the block type in question is an autoblock, which means somebody else using your IP did something to get themselves blocked. This is pretty common if you edit from a university or other entity where IP addresses are shared. Don't sweat it, but if it happens again, report it again, and we'll dig further. Again, no unblock action was taken, because you've subsequently been able to edit my user talk page, but I'm marking the request as accepted anyway. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock-auto|127.0.0.1|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Timeshitf9". The reason given for Timeshitf9's block is: "
Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
".|C.Fred|4684157}}
@Quadell: It is very odd. Check your email for a longer description of what I've seen. I'll be out of pocket for an hour or two, if you have time to chase this more now. —C.Fred (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what is going on here, but 127.0.0.1 is your device's local IP address that certainly couldn't have been used by another user. As it appears that you are able to edit, I've disabled the unblock request. Certainly feel free to ask for help if this arises again. —DoRD (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my thanks to you also, @DoRD:. It's all a bit confusing … I don't know if it's relevant, but just before the first block, I noticed that some of the images in articles I was visiting were coming through very weirdly – distorting, then slowly emerging intact. These were articles I'd edited over a period of months, and from memory the images were ones I personally had uploaded either through wikiCommons or as non-free content with Upload Wizard here. Mighty strange. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG66. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Joi Bangla.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Joi Bangla}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Looking it over, I'm surprised that got declined as non-notable. Do you think enough sources could be provided to make it obvious that it's a notable EP? I'll help, if it's something you think is worth it. – Quadell(talk)19:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Quadell: apologies for not replying – I hadn't noticed your message here. (It's not listed in my Special:Notifications either, I've just realised ...) I agree about Joi Bangla, I certainly thought it was notable enough, although from memory, I might've made the article a bit too Beatle-oriented. Still, it's the tough reviews – or the outright rejections in this instance – that often do us the biggest favours in the long run!
Thanks for the offer – I'm good to go already, in fact. More sources to support what was there originally, for sure, but also the all-important points from Shankar's perspective. Should be quite good, I think. JG66 (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem JG. The reception I'd be happy if you could add to that as reception sections aren't really my forte (which incidentally is the reason why I'm holding off of nominating Back to the Egg). I'm unsure as to who brought the regulars from London's Hatchett Club to add backing vocals tio the song. I've seen a variety of Klein, Lennon, Preston, Lennon & Klein, etc. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 14:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG, All is well, sorry to read of your troubles. Just checked out your review, and am happy to support it. Also replied on Quadell's talk page. Like Quadell I thought about borrowing the book from my library, but its not listed on their website. Must confess I haven't done a GAR for a while. Have been getting to grips with a new PC, so didn't want to do anything too challenging till I was up to speed. I'll get back there eventually though. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG. It's no problem at all. I've often see students use Wikipedia and some teachers often accept it without raising an eye; I presume Thomson tried to do something similar with his book and slip it under the door, so to speak. As clearly pointed out on Quadell's talk though, it hasn't slipped through easily.
Feel free to change/add/remove anything on "Instant Karma!", 'tis the spirit of Wiki after all. I originally added full details of the books before I realised how difficult it made the section to read, sometime afterwards I intended for the first occurrence of a book to be long-form (for example: Blaney, John (2005). John Lennon: Listen to This Book (illustrated ed.). [S.l.]: Paper Jukebox. p. 50. ISBN978-0-9544528-1-0.) then any previous/subsequent pages from the same book to be in short-form (like: Blaney 2005, p. 51). There's one instance where the short-form appears before the long-form version, however, which I'll fix after this message. Since a fair amount of the books has info on only one of the pages (thus needing only the long-form) compared to a few books' couple of pages (long-form then short-form), it's made the citations look lopsided and the consistency somewhat irregular. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why but I've previously always objected to a Sources list at the bottom page, but the way you put it is actually making me think differently towards it. I now see that it's a lot easier – feel free to add a Sources list. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JG. The article is looking great, I think I might be able to get that screenshot from the TOTP performance you suggested from the CD/DVD version of Lennon Legend. (Although I don't know which version is included as I haven't seen it in sometime).
Ahh, I gotcha now. I think they'd be worth including only if the chart positions are different from the main charts, which in the case of "Instant Karma!" isn't needed, so I'll remove them. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 17:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be able to upload the screenshot from the DVD before Friday, hopefully. Would this (pause anywhere between 0:03 and 0:05) be a good (no pun intended) picture of the haircuts?
Huh, it seems the JPGR site has flown under the radar (like Beatles Bible). I thought it would've been appropriate, but WP:ELNO (no. 11) says otherwise. Will remove.
Took me awhile to find a reasonable 'clean' version of it; I think the image is meant to be slightly longer at the right-hand side, but hey a image is better than no image. I find fair-use rationale easy to fill in, though I use the old Upload form, instead of the File Upload Wizard, so I just copy the necessary info (article, artist, source, etc.) a lot quicker without getting confused as I have done with File Upload Wizard. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations again, JG66. As a follow-up, I spoke with several others, and the general consensus is that it's acceptable to say "Jones writes" as a figure of speech meaning "Jones' work states". It's also acceptable to say "Jones wrote", particularly if relating the writing to a specific time period. (This is just what you were saying.) It's only important to avoid "The book stated" (unless it's been retracted or no longer exists) or "Jones sat down at a typewriter and writes". (But other editors are even happy with wording like "Jones wrote a book in 1970, in which he writes...", which sound funny to me.) Anyway, I learn lots of new things by reviewing! All the best, – Quadell(talk)13:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gambaccini
Hey, JG66. I hope all is well with you and yours. I wondered what you thought of Gambaccini as a source, because it's my understanding that Olivia disputed his knowledge of George, and said that Gambaccini met him for about 5 minutes, but then he came-out with loads of stuff that George supposedly told him, but again, Olivia disputes this. What are your thoughts? GabeMc(talk|contribs)23:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re:W&B backstory
Hello JG. He's probably right about needing to archive though, my talk this year is (I think) 3 times bigger than last year's.
Hi. I wasn't aware of any previous discussion, but I moved the links to links to Wonderwall and Electric Sound to the "related" section because they seem to be in a similar vein as Lennon's Two Virgins or McCartney's The Family Way. Another reason was because All Things Must Pass is (as you know) almost universally considered his first album by critics, the public and Harrison himself. The Wookieepedian (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC) The Wookieepedian (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got my information from setlist.fm, but assumed that they were in error with the two-night concert thing. Anyway, I figured you'd be interested in this topic, so I got it started for ya. ;) By the way, I've got no objection to you moving it to the new title. The Wookieepedian (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PER: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Harrison article" and "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the George Harrison discography article", your discussion of improvements to the Harrison discography should take place at the Harrison discography talk page. Its fine to provide a link at the Harrison talk page, but not to hold the discussion there. You agreed with me before I agreed with you, so please show me that this isn't yet another juvenile Wikipedia power struggle. GabeMc(talk|contribs)00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your comment at my talk not to be disrespectful; ideally, discussion should occur at one talk page for the sake of continuity. I also think that we have been getting along and we are most certainly on the same page, but please don't disregard proper procedure; they are in place for good reason, and its arrogant at best to think that you or I know better. Trust me, this is how it is supposed to happen, lets not waste time re-inventing the wheel. If its exposure you want, then start an RfC. Responders tend to be among the most thoughtful and experienced Wikikpedians. FWIW, I absolutely think that you are the biggest potential asset to the Beatles project to come along in years, if you learn the rules and processes, and agree to respect them. You have so much to offer, you know that, but you need to reel in your rebellious nature if you want to make the biggest possible positive impact on the project, IMO. GabeMc(talk|contribs)01:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that any discussions about the Harrison disco need to located at the Harrison disco talk page so that long after we are gone, others can see how and why we did certain things because the discussion will be archived at the appropriate location. See the bottom of WP:TALKNOGabeMc(talk|contribs)17:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
