I am angry at discovering certain comments by an editor that falsely accuses me of saying "I won". That is absolute shite, and a classic case of misquoting my comment, and/or reading something into it that was not there. The editor concerned knows who he is, so I will not mention his name.
To put the record straight, I actually said, "...I will drink a pint to you, and salute you. We not only pulled a pint, we pulled it off. Have one on me... The thing about 'The thing' is over, at last. I'm so happy I could buy a round. Cheers, La." (meaning that there was an end to the whole mess, and I could get back to working on articles).The full message is here...
Is that all the concerned editor could find to incriminate me? Oh, how he must have searched... I despair. I seriously doubt that an apology will be forthcoming, but one can only live in hope. andreasegde21:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The editor in question can speak for himself, but I think it's worth noting that his post included a link to the actual comments so people could easily read the post in question and draw their own conclusions. For what it's worth, I interpreted it as he did, the "We pulled it off" part in particular. John Cardinal21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Water under the bridge. Please, let's draw a line under this and get back to work. (Don't reply to this unless you disagree, please). --kingboyk22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. "Thanks Athens: you pulled it off…. So it was in Athens, which for a fortnight managed, at least temporarily, to distract the people of the world from their worries, possibly even their politics, their wars, their natural disasters." Thanks Athens: you pulled it offandreasegde22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the photo of Sutcliffe and Harrison on the Stuart Sutcliffe page (spotted by Vera, Chuck & Dave) you will see a left-handed Hofner bass by Sutcliffes's leg, on the left. How is that possible when Macca started playing bass after Sutcliffe left?? Something is amiss here, methinks...andreasegde14:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this the guitar partly obscured by a bottle? It does lok like a Hofner type from the scratchplate, but I cannot distinguish if it is a bass or not. However, I counted the strings on the guitar that Sutcliffe is playing (and compared it to the other image on the page which shows some of the tuning pegs) and that is most certainly a bass.
If memory serves, the violin type bass that McCartney used was not originally set up for left hand. Although the shape allowed it to be played either hand (once the strings were re-arranged) the control knobs would be different. I recall reading that this ability to alter settings whilst playing (as Jimi Hendrix later did with his Strat) allowed McCartney to use it in a more melodic style than was usual at the time. You have the books, so perhaps you can check if Macca used a left handed model or adapted a righty from any pictures by looking at the pots. Lastly, Hofner is a German make of guitar and the Hamburg pic may simply show some-one elses bass, it would have been a common instrument for the time and place. LessHeard vanU22:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
According to Lewisohn and other sources, Stu occasionally sat in with the group after Paul took over on bass. Paul's bass would have been strung left-handed and therefore useless for Stu; it stands to reason that when Stu sat in, he brought his own bass. Raymond Arritt22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Very strange. Bill Harry says that Stu left the group in December 1961 and he stayed in Hamburg. Harry then says that Stu played some further gigs with them when they returned, but he says that happened in "March 1961" [my emphasis]. Perhaps that's an error, and should be 1962. In any case, if Stuart sat in after McCartney started playing bass, that could explain the presence of the Hofner... John Cardinal22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The pic is from their second engagement at the Top Ten Club, i.e. sometime during April-June 1961. Stu effectively left the group midway through this Top Ten run. In the pic George is still playing his Futurama instead of the Gretsch DuoJet he bought that summer after they returned to Liverpool. Raymond Arritt23:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The photo of the bass behind the coke bottle was taken by Peter Bruchmann at the Star Club in 1960 (as it says in the Spitz book).
Is there any photo anywhere of Macca playing a right-handed Hofner bass? (Upside-down of course.) I've never seen one. You will win £5 from Crestville if you find one. :)andreasegde10:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have looked on the net, and I have only seen Macca with one with a scratchguard and one without, but both are left-handed. Macca would never sell anything, so I was surprised to see a left-handed one that had been sold for 29,000 dollars. Hmmm...andreasegde10:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Lewisohn's "Chronicles" says the photo is from the Star Club 1961 engagement. But what clinches it is that the bass in the pic has the pickguard in the left-handed position. Raymond Arritt16:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that McCartney bought the bass and then Sutcliffe sat in on the gig? Does it mean that McCartney always had a left-handed bass, which would mean an end to the "right-handed bass that he turned around" story? This could sort out a lot of stuff. I thank you very much for your answer, BTW. :)andreasegde16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the "right-handed bass that he turned around" story started, but anyone who plays (or is familiar with) bass can tell it's very obviously wrong. Not only is the pickguard in the left-handed position, but the control plate with the switches and volume knobs is in the left-handed position as can be seen in pictures from the era such as these. To switch the bass around he would have had to remove the controls, expertly patch over the hole where they had been, rout a new hole for the control plate, and reinstall the electronics to the pickups -- all quite absurd. It was probably custom-ordered, according to several sources, but unquestionably was built from the beginning as a left-handed model. Raymond Arritt16:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! That puts paid to all those stories. Hofner must have had left-handed basses back then (God knows why) but... why was Sutcliffe in on the session/gig? It seems there is a lot more to know about the stuff that is skimmed over in biographies. BTW, do you know that Sutcliffe had a furious fist-fight with McCartney one night during a gig because McCartney said something bad about Kirchherr on stage? This prompted Sutcliffe's leaving, according to Spitz's source. The band played on, and broke them both up after the song ended. Wonderful stuff. andreasegde16:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahhh, I have just read that Macca bought a bass when he got to Hamburg (but borrowed Sutcliffe's bass until he got one which he had to play upside-down) and Sutcliffe "sat in with them" when they returned in 1961. Case solved. andreasegde07:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Flowers in the Dirt
I have a question. Paul's album Flowers in the Dirt contains collaborations with Elvis Costello under the name Declan MacManus. The track listing also gives "You Want Her Too" (Paul McCartney/Declan MacManus) as duet with co-writer Elvis Costello (i.e. Declan MacManus) - is this song officially billed as a duet with Costello (as the WP track listing suggests) or is it billed as a duet with Declan MacManus (seems more logical to me). I think the WP usage should reflect the official billing. Cheers, Str1977(smile back)20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The guy performs as Elvis Costello, and writes as Declan MacManus. That would make the WP article correct. --kingboyk20:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a certain Mr Richard Starkey, who used to be published by Startling Music, who goes under the name Ringo Starr, I believe. Never 'eard of him, personally. --kingboyk21:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Kingboyk, thanks for the information. That's what I wanted to know.
Andreasegde, don't treat me like a silly child. I know perfectly well the difference and I didn't ask about it. I only asked which name he used on this record. Str1977(smile back)09:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I am really sorry if you felt hurt, User talk:Str1977 - I was only having fun. The editors on The Beatles' pages often joke with each other, and it was definitely not a joke against you. We are a wonderful bunch, and you should join us. Trust me on this one, please... :) egde19:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite pissed off at losing "The Beatles films". There seems to be a drive currently to remove categories which have few articles in them, even if the logical seperation is sound or they aid navigation :( --kingboyk22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what to do/say about losing categories, but I think the portal page idea I mentioned elsewhere is a means within our control to categorize articles and content. I know, I know; I should stop talking about it and get started, but I have some non-WP items in the fire right now and can't get to it until next week. John Cardinal01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
"Our"? Weren't you one of the folks who declined my request to rejoin? :P Just get yerself back on the list man!!
Seriously, the portal idea doesn't seem like a bad one; I'm not sure how much freedom we have in that namespace to do those things but I suspect quite a lot. Keeping such an entity up to date manually would be difficult though, perhaps a bot should be enlisted to help? --kingboyk11:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 5. Sigh. I'm getting really sad at the state of CFD; instead of treating categories as handy containers for groups of articles they seem to have moved towards "if not bursting at the seams, delete it". If they go around just deleting Beatles categories we'll end up with (may already have) stacks of uncategorised articles; if on the other hand they actually bother to merge to Category:The Beatles (which doesn't seem to be happening) that category will become a mess again. And I spent so long sorting out these categories. --kingboyk14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not "alleged" - entire sentences have been copied verbatim from that website, which consitutes a copyright violation. The article should probably be rewritten from scratch in a temporary sandbox, as the copyvio template suggests. Миша1312:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you actually reading what other people write? Check the article - the URL is clearly specified there. Миша1313:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
We are trying to have a constructive discussion on how to fix the article. It would help immensely if we talk about the URL on this page. So what is the URL In question? Steelbeard113:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so for those who are too lazy to visit the article and read for themselves:
The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems:
There have been a growing number of Wikipedians questioning the need for a separate infobox for guitarists. The {{Guitarist infobox}} was created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Guitarists, and it easily survived a deletion nomination back in September of last year, but that was before {{Infobox musical artist}} (which is supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians) became a widely accepted standard. Both infoboxes are currently endorsed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, but recent discussions between some members of the Guitarist and Musician Wikiprojects have concluded that it may be time to deprecate the guitarist infobox, and start replacing it. (Unfortunately, this is not a task for bots, and will have to be done manually.)
Before making any final decision on the matter, we would like to get feedback from the broader community, so I am posting this notice to several Wikiprojects which may be affected. Comments should be posted to Template talk:Guitarist infobox. If you have strong feelings about this infobox, one way or the other, please feel free to let us know. Thanks, Xtifrtälk12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, not an official member of this project but thought I'd mention this - I couldn't see any policy on the project page about it so made my own judgement which of course we can discuss if need be. An anon editor has been changing credits under Track Listings on a few later albums to read either 'Lennon' or 'McCartney', depending on the actual author. I understand this, we all know that the pair wrote many/most songs apart in the second half of the 60s so the attributions are probably 'correct', however I've reverted them since I believe the subtleties of who 'actually' wrote what belongs in the main body of the article (where it's already generally discussed) and not in the Track Listing, where you should just go with the official songwriting credits. Cheers, Ian Rose03:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting: The Beatles in Australia. Watch the last 30 seconds - they're all doing the Nazi salute and laughing. (John puts his hand to his nose to look like Hitler.) George shouts, "We build tanks, and ships" and "Deutschland über alles...". They did it in Liverpool as well when they returned there to promote the "Hard Day's Night" film. What about the great undiscovered controversy of The Beatles saying, "We're bigger than Adolf"? --andreasegde07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with LuciferMorgan. Love.Angel.Music.Baby is a featured topic because out of the seven articles in it, 4 are featured, and the other three are good articles. Out of the other three, i am working on two so that even they are featured with the help of some real nice editors. But sadly, Gwen Stefani has no Wikiproject. User:Luxurious.gaurav
Hey Jude FAR
Hey Jude has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan19:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
For non notability (!) and a lack of sources. Obviously we need WP:BEATLES members to rally together and provide reasoned support for this article to remain. Liverpool Scouse19:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Disagree, I did recieve a very polite informal warning from a sysop regarding this but after some discussion they agreed this hardly contravenes WP:CANVASS (User_talk:Liverpool_Scouse#Canvassing). Let us concentrate on the issue (improving the article in question) rather than putting down a good-faith posting on this talk page, now that it's survived the AfD. Liverpool Scouse16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to the author of the Crackerbox Palace article for
the interesting insights about the origin of the song.
However, it seems to me from both the video and lyrics that
this song is a metaphor for our life in creation. This seems
clear in general throughout, but some particular instances include:
- the first words "I was so young, when I was born..."
- "... or face the fact that Crackerbox palace may have no other
choice than to deport you" is a reference to violence on the
part of earthly authority,
- "know that the Lord is well and inside of you" is not a reference to
Lord Buckley as stated in the article, but rather to Harrison's
well demonstrated belief that each individual is inhabited by the Divine
Spirit.
Constructive suggestions for Beatles Discography article
I have some suggestions about how to improve the The Beatles discography article. I would much prefer to engage in discussion before making any changes. I posted a series of ideas on the talk page for that article in March - but apart from one minor (but valid) comment on a very specific point - no response. I have just re-posted my set of suggestions. It would be great if those who care about Beatles articles would look at the suggestions and offer some thoughts so we might evolve a consensus. Thanks. Davidpatrick02:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Lost Weekend citations needed
I have been attempting to encourage a couple of editors in the John Lennon and May Pang to find more citations for the Lost Weekend sections fo both articles. Currently, they are relying solely upon Pang's uncited bio and Larry Kane's reminisces. Frankly, as Kane was writing something a bit closer to journalism, he is almost enough, but no BLP (and Lennon's article qualifies as such, since the people affected, Yoko Ono and May Pang, are living) can exist with only one citable source.
In accordance to BLP, I am supposed to remove this info immediately, as it is disparaging. However, I have removed it to the discussion area on one of the pages, pending better citation. I have spent all my time since dealing with people who think I am part of some anti-Lennon conspiracy. I tend to respond rather negatively to that, but I held back somewhat. I grew up with Lennon's music, and I am a bit miffed at the personal attacks and uncivility.
Look, I want the articles to make it to FA status, and the way they are now, at least Pang's article is in danger of AfD, since without the Lost Weekend info that has to be removed, there wouldn't be anything left. I would like to ask that some folk here who know their way around a search engine find some better sources for the Lost Weekend, or it will have to be removed as per policy. - Arcayne(cast a spell)02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'd like to get the Badfinger article to GA status... I thought I'd enlist help from the members of this project, anyone interested? Also, I've sem- recently made some edits to the Klaus Voorman article but I'm not sure of my accuracy on his discography.-MichiganCharms17:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at it and there are only two in-line references in it. There would have to be an awful lot more to get it to GA. Why not use the book that is referenced and add page numbers? Even web pages would help. --andreasegde 16:38, 2007 (UTC)
Badfinger is shockingly hard to find citations for online, I'm waiting to receive my copy of the book, rare as it is, so when that comes in I'll start getting the specific pages down. Still, I feel a claim as big as "Heir apparent to The Beatles", as true as it is, needs a cite and I simply can't find any articles on them from the early 70's. -MichiganCharms17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Emphasizing main writer in lead section for Lennon/McCartney collaborations
There is a bit of an edit war in In My Life around "with input from" language deemphasizing McCartney as a collaborator. As this could establish a precedent effecting many articles, it could use some input from the WikiProject.
There are a lot more things that need fixing with the article than who wrote the song. Page numbers need to be added to 'Notes', and the ISBN numbers need to be put in 'References'. --andreasegde17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Lennon Artificial Intelligence Project. I added a feature from the Evening Standard, so this meets notability, but the article is only two sentences, so if anyone is able to add any relevant information, or more sources? I remember Yoko Ono mentioning this, in a positive way, but I can't find any reference to that now. If Yoko's comments could be found that would add a lot to the article. Masaruemoto19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles' Project is dying a slow death (if it ain't dead already, girl, you know the reason why...) Lethargic is not the word.
In the whole world this project has only 40 participants (much less if you don't put a politcal 'spin' on it and look at the editing history of the participants).
If nobody answers this post, one must surely come to the logical conclusion that the last comment is the right one. --andreasegde01:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree – I don't think that the project should be closed down. First, one doesn't close down the project because no one responds here: there should be more of an effort to contact project members. There's no guarantee that project members have this page on their watchlist and if they do not then they are not aware of your comment. (WP has processes for this sort of thing and that process should be followed.) Second, getting articles to FA or GA is not the sole purpose of the Project. In general, why not suggest ways to make the project come alive, rather than nailing the coffin closed? BTW, I didn't respond before because I am not an official project member at this time and because your question seemed rhetorical to me. John Cardinal02:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Does it piss anyone else off that all of Lennon's major songs on Wikipedia (Lucy in the Sky, Strawberry Fields, Revolution, etc) are all noted as being "written mainly by John Lennon" but all of McCartney's songs are simply "written by Paul McCartney"? I feel this is somewhat biased, especially since Lennon's contributions to these Paul songs are usually about as much as what Paul contributed to the other songs. For example, if "Come Together" can be written "primarily" by John Lennon just because McCartney contributed a little bit of piano, shouldn't "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" be written "primarily" by Paul McCartney since John both came up with the piano part in the beginning (leading to the piano existing throughout) and sped the track up from its original, slow speed? This is just one of endless examples (and maybe even not such a good one, since Lennon never liked the song and probably wouldn't want to be given credit), but it's just a trend I've noticed that, in my opinion, needs remedying; but at the very least, it should be re-examined.
CinnamonCinder21:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is a McCartney bias in WikiPedia. In fact, there may be a Lennon bias. If you read the articles about important McCartney songs, there are many negative comments, but in Lennon songs, there is only hero worship. So, given that you and I see opposite biases, maybe WP is doing OK. John Cardinal01:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. All those have are quotes from fellow band members--important quotes--in which they say they dislike the songs. That's not POV at all--there's no editorial assertion or anti-McCartney bias. Just reporting. 216.165.23.4504:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the presence of those comments indicates bias. I think the absence of negative comments in Lennon articles indicates bias. I've added negative comments to articles about McCartney songs, mostly comments from JL or professional reviewers, and I think those comments are valid, important content. If we are going to include praise when it exists, then we should include criticism. John Cardinal12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting discussion here. I don't have a Wiki account, bt I occasionally make revisions to Beatles pages and just came across this Wiki project thing. I agree with John (Cardinal), but I also think in many of the Lennon songs' pages, Lennon provides the negative commentary himself, like with "And Your Bird Can Sing" and other songs he'll deem as just "another one of my throwaways." - Ray. 128.122.89.4223:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This has been mentioned before, but unless there is 100% proof (and there never will be, because even McCartney is not totally sure about the specific amounts of individual input on many songs) sentences like "written mainly by John Lennon"—unless well-referenced from quotes by both Lennon and McCartney—should be regarded as pure POV, IMHO. --andreasegde19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There is rarely 100% proof of anything. If we have evidence that Lennon and McCartney agree about who wrote what--and we usually do--then it's appropriate to say "written mainly by" or some other phrase that summarizes what the evidence indicates. That's not POV at all; it's reporting the evidence. In some cases Lennon and McCartney disagree a little, and in a very few cases, they disagree a lot. Summarizing can be hard in those cases, but not impossible. In all cases, the articles should present the evidence so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusion.
In cases where third-parties claim they wrote part of a Lennon/McCartney song, I think much stronger evidence is required to accept the claim.
I get the feeling that people who edit The Beatles' pages don't know that this "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles" page exists (I had trouble finding it one year ago). Maybe they should be informed? --andreasegde19:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
John Cardinal has been added to the list of correct answers. God bless him and all who sail in him... :) Anybody want to try the new question? --andreasegde15:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
DVD quotes
Can anyone tell me if it's forbidden to put quotes in from a DVD - showing episode and time of quote on DVD? I have added one to Neil Aspinall, but I don't know the ruling on this. --andreasegde16:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's forbidden, and can't think of any reason why it would be. I think a quote from a DVD (or any movie medium) is more difficult to review than a book but if the DVD is the only available source, it's better than nothing. John Cardinal20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I thought it's comparable, or better, than quotes from newspapers, (although they are still good) as the papers being quoted are usually out of print, or hard to get a copy of. I was just wondering if there was some template for putting DVD quotes in the "References" section. --andreasegde15:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am combing through this list. If anybody has not contributed for six months or more, they will be put on the 'Inactive' list. If anyone disagrees, all they have to do is put their own name back on the 'Participants' list again. I thank you, over and out... --andreasegde17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Or what about, "Oh, When The blokes wot used to be mates with Jesus called Saints, Come Marchin' In"... Nah, it wouldn't work - you can't have Jesus in a pop song. Catchy title, though... --Sir Cliff Pilchard15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After userSixString1965 was indef banned for all sorts of unsavory activity, a few socks atarted showing up, editing in John Lennon almost exclusively. Now, an anon user:24.168.17.212, he is editing again, removing old posts identifying his other sock and calling for the article to be deleted and to start over, Mindguerilla and callng into question the validity of the placeholder image (which has already gone through permissions and given a bill of authenticity) with the sock Jeffrey O. Assmunch (no doubt a childish dig at Jeffrey O Gunderson, one of the admins who caught this trollish sock-puppeteer). Could we get some help, please? Maybe a semi-protection would help for a bit, prevening these socks from being created to disrupt the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Beatles WikiProject, I just want to let you know the FA The Long and Winding Road can use some help. It's not really up to current FA standards. I know your hard at work making more Beatle FAs, but don't forget about the ones that already are. Keep up the good work! Rocket000 (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
(Outdent) I added the missing citation; the orchestra lineup was described in MacDonald's Revolution in the Head. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the end of the citation work, but I am going to put further comments on the talk page for the article. John Cardinal (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone has added a lot of uncited details about label colors on the Capitol album releases. I think it's all non-notable except possibly to collectors trying to determine which version they have. I think it should be deleted from the various articles, but given someone invested a fair amount of effort to add it, I thought I'd see what other editors think... John Cardinal (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am using Barry Miles' book, Bob Spitz's book, and Cynthia Lennon's book for references. I once had the Coleman and Davies' books, but have realised that they missed a lot of information out. I would love to have copies of Bill Harry's books, as well as the others about the Apple days, but I will buy them when I am next in England. When I do have them, I will put so many references into articles that someone is bound to complain. At the moment I am concentrating on facts that can be verified by all three, but also by web pages. What more can one do? :) --andreasegde20:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If anyone claims about too many references, ignore them. It's a far nicer problem than too few. Getting some more books would certainly be good as I'm sick of the sight of Spitz and Miles! :P ;) Keep up the good work man, I see you've been real busy... --kingboyk14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Kingboyk - nice to see you back. I'm also sick of Spitz (who loves Lennon) and Miles (who bows down to Macca) as well, and Cynthia's writing reminds me of a schoolgirl's first novel. (If I read, "We had a marvellous meal" one more time, I will throw up... :) --andreasegde18:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to say I'm adding references from the Antholgy DVD box set as well. I know it's not conventional, but it is the Fabs talking directly to camera. --andreasegde (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I have a brief question I was hoping to ask the assembled talents here. Out of curiosity, does anyone ever know if the Beatles ever commented on or talked about how Charles Manson used their music? A press release, something one of them said in an interview, anything?... I'm guessing there would have been some media pressure at the time of the trial for them to say something... anyway, just curious. Thank you for your time. --Brasswatchman (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I remember that it was mentioned in conversation/interview once or twice, but extremely briefly, and not really enough to start an article about it. Sorry.--andreasegde (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Alistair Taylor "This man has talent"
Hi. I have a little problem with the photo that illustrates the article of Alistair Taylor, the image , has some problems in the classification of "Non-free use rationale". If it's not fixed it will deleted.
Please can somebody help to fill the template to solve the problems. Thank you --Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your Help!, with this kind of little help of my friends we are getting better all the time. Thank you girl / boy. --Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Sunny Heights
I would really like to know where Ringo lived. I know where John lived at Kenwood, but how far away was Sunny Heights? --andreasegde21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading in Yeserday and Today that it was on Lennon's estate, can't check it now though, I've loaned it out! Cheers la, Vera, Chuck & Dave20:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't it some private "gated community"? i.e. Ringo lived on "John's estate" but not "the estate that John owned"?? --kingboyk20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Look at Cynthia Lennon and the Kenwood section. They both lived in the same area of Weybridge (St. John's/George's Hill?) but Lennon walked across the fields (Golf course?) at Xmas to get to Ringo's house. The google sat photo is useful. --andreasegde (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said :) Saint George's Hill "is a 964-acre (3.9 km²) private estate in Weybridge, Surrey in the United Kingdom. The estate features both a Golf and Tennis club as well as approx 420 houses. The estate is a popular residential location for celebrities and successful entrepreneurs." --kingboyk (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, because I've got Lennon's house on a google sat photo, and I've read so much about the walk across the fields at Xmas, I would like to know... (It's a boring life, but someone's gotta live it. :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey it would be quite cool to set up a Google Earth file of Beatle locations wouldn't it? Indeed maybe somebody has already done it? --kingboyk (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've already done a basic one for Liverpool, which is found here:
Ringo Lived in 'Sunny Heights' in South Road St Georges Hill Weybridge the home overlooked the St George's Hill Golf Course. The House is few minutes from the Lennons Kenwood estate which is in Wood Lane. Lennon sold Kenwood in 1969/70 and moved to Tittenhurst Park in Ascot this is the home where Lennon filmed the Imagine Video and Jealous Guy. Ringo bought the house off John in the early 70's and lived there until 1988.BermudaBreeze (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As the rules are being changed, and there is no possibility at all to get an article to GA/FA without references, I propose that EVERY edit without a reference should be DELETED. It doesn't matter if we have heard/read about it, they should go.... --andreasegde (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, give it a citation needed warning, but let's not leave it too long before the scissors come out. If new editors see/think they can do it, it will never stop. --andreasegde (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just going to say: if you know the statement to be true but it's not sourced and needs to be, using a {{fact}} tag would probably be more constructive. You beat me to it :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The order of sections and chronological questions are being raised on the John Lennon talk page. If you have time for a cuppa tea, you should drink it whilst taking a look at it. --andreasegde (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The best indicator of notability imho is the availability of reliable sources. So, probably yes. If you'd care to paste in some article titles I'd be happy to take a look and give you an opinion... --kingboyk (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That's OK; seeing as they have been mentioned in books & portrayed on TV (and Freddie Lennon did sell a record), that's notable enough. PS- Paul & John sure do look like their daddys. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Try the Liverpool Lennons site - it's got an old photo of Alfred Lennon's parents (Lennon's grandparents) and Mary "Polly" Lennon (nee Maguire) is a 'doppelganger' as they say. Not sure about Paul looking like his dad, but he does look a lot like his mum. --andreasegde (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, the older Paul gets (particularly around the chin) the more he looks like Jim (we need a frontal image of Jim, to show this). GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't even bother looking at it, as it was a complete waste of time. I have the feeling that the bible-bashers will never forgive Lennon (or his relatives, bless them) for saying that The Beatles were bigger than "John's Chest". Slight typo there, methinks... --andreasegde (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Any living person will have a non-free image deleted from the infobox sooner or later. It's better to move it down into the article. That'll fox 'em. --andreasegde (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why a Parisian boulevard is used as the icon photo for the project banner of a British group, and why said photo is misidentified as Abbey Road on some versions of the banner? Robert K S (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
To clear this up, after I posted my initial message here, User:WWGB changed the picture for one banner and I changed all the others so that they were at least pictures of Abbey Road. Except {{WPBeatles}} didn't "want" to change, and I can't figure out why. See that banner's talk page. (Issue fixed) (Also note there that this photo anomaly was noticed as long ago as 2006!) Robert K S (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Steve's original point (made in 2006) it looks nice, much better than the one with the Zig-Zags, no Zigs on the album cover crossing:) Jus my opinion Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
New Photo
Then all it needs is a photo of a zebra crossing, no? Of course, if I had a free photo of the real crossing I could doctor it and take the zig-zags out (clever little forger that I am :)--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I download the free photo, doctor it and then upload it as a new free photo/changed free photo, or as fair-use? I could take the zig-zags out, and possibly a car or two, paint the crossing (which looks a bit shabby) and highlight the Abbey House wooden sign. It's not stem-cell research, but it would look nicer. Should I brace myself for a flying fish to be slapped across my boat race, or wha?--andreasegde (talk) 13:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You vill av to address zis terrrrable fish fettish herr edge, or you vill becoming as mad as ze hairy mongoose! Ich denke, es ist eine gute Idee, mein freund! Sigismund Fraud14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For people receiving BBC World, the former comments deviate from 'er Majesty's received pronunciation, and should be disregarded. All complaints will be ignored, by order of whoever gave it.--andreasegde (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, normal service is resumed, and I would like to state that the idea proposed by Mr. Bimler is a jolly good one indeed. I thank you for your attention. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the fabs out of the original (looks spooky) but I'll have to check whether I can upload it as free-use. I wouldn't bet on it. --andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the zig-zags out of the free-use photo and have cleaned the zebra crossing. It says I can upload a newer version, but I may upload it as a doctored version, so as not to step on the toes of the original uploader. Does that sound OK?--andreasegde (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just upload your new version as an all-new photo rather than uploading it over the original, which is in the Commons as well? Robert K S (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I will, and thanks. The only problem is the zebra stripes in the recent photo are not as long as the original album cover. Am I being a bit pendantic or what? :))
I will upload both. The original without The Beatles as a fair-use photo (it's quite interesting) and the free-use as a better example. --andreasegde (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I want to look at both again, as they look good in Wiki-size, but when you blow them up a bit I can still see some mistakes. Yes, I know, I am being pedantic, but I have to do it. :))--andreasegde (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you look at this and then this, it looks to me as if they have moved the zebra crossing further north. (I used the white wall and gates on the left as a reference). The Beetle car would be too close to the crossing at it is now; in fact it would almost be on top of it. Any eagle-eyed Sherlocks to verify this, or am I talking out of my hat? --andreasegde (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
So they did do it, the feckers. I suppose they were only taking their cue from Liverpool city council, who destroyed the original Cavern Club. --Mr Non-Notable (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sod it, I have changed the templates photos. If anyone doesn't agree, they should slap me with a live trout until I change them back.--andreasegde (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
New article under your purview
Hello;
I ran into Fly on the Wall (The Beatles) last night when I was being vain and checking to see if my own new page had been patrolled. No one else seems to have noticed it, but I thought that this project would probably appreciate knowing about it. It's an unwikified stub at this point; would it be better off as a redirect to the appropriate section of the LIBN album article? J. Spencer (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be better for it to be deleted, as the main Let It Be… Naked article details it. --andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 16 February
Should there be an article on them? I know there is The Beatles Anthology, but would it be worth it to write about what's actually on them, locations, subjects talked about, songs played etc., without it being a list? --andreasegde (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
(I'm only saying this because I've got 'em, and it'd be easy to watch them and press the pause button here and there... , err, and eve-ry-where...)--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough I was looking over the White Album article and thinking the DVD comments by the Threetles and Martin on whether it should have been a single album would make a useful addition. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Music samples
Hello, hello. Long time, no speak. I'm just popping by to alert everyone to the fact that many of the music samples available in Category:The Beatles music samples are orphaned (i.e. not used in any articles) and, as such, are scheduled for deletion by February 24th. Someone please act quickly to put these sound samples in articles using Template:Listen. Thanks! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a strange one, because someone put it up for a GA, but said nothing about it on the talk page. I don't know what to make of it. If you look at the talk page, you might (as I did) start thinking about 'socks', but that may only be me being paranoid. "Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they're NOT out to get ya." :))--andreasegde (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Three-Beatle recordings outside the group
The article All Those Years Ago says "It is one of only several non-Beatles songs to feature three members of the group." However, the only other song I can think of to be released under a name other than The Beatles and feature three Beatles on the recording is Ringo's "I'm the Greatest" which also featured John and George. Are there any others? --Metropolitan90(talk)01:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that the original reference said "non-Beatles songs". Everything on The White Album including "Back in the U.S.S.R." and "Dear Prudence" was released as by The Beatles. --Metropolitan90(talk)14:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "Sour Milk Sea" would definitely count. I was looking only at the Beatles' solo work and didn't consider that they might have had three members together on someone else's recording. --Metropolitan90(talk)05:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What about Rory Storm? "Starr played drums, which was the first time all four (Lennon, McCartney Harrison and Starr) played and recorded together. They recorded three songs: "Fever", "September Song" and "Summertime"." It didn't get released to my knowledge, and it has four of them on it. (Sound of this edit being thrown into trash can.) Bugger... :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
This could, and should, be a GA. Anyone willing to look at it? It's got lots of references, but just needs some cleaning and formatting.--andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You should read this page. It's full of things that anyone who knows anything about this project would get a good laugh out of. Basically it says you should never trust a Liverpudlian taxi driver. :))
"The first place Alan [the taxi driver] took us on our tour was St. Peter’s Church. There was also the grave of John Lennon’s uncle, Uncle George Toogood Smith, who was more like a father to John. He was called Toogood because of his jazz playing skills. Eleanor Rigby’s grave was also in this cemetery. Eleanor Rigby was from a very well to do family. She chose to become as a musician, and she ended up on the streets. John was always warned by his mother that she would end up like Eleanor Rigby."
"Paul McCartney and John Lennon both went to the same school for boys, which was where they met."
"John and Paul met on the bus to the Liverpool Academy for Boys."
"Alan then showed us the place where Paul bought his first Elvis Presley album."
"Next we went into the barbershop where some of the Beatles used to get their haircut. Alan had said we could have taken pictures in the chairs, though the hair stylists were all doing their hair and makeup and wouldn’t actually get out of the chairs."
"His [Lennon's] mother had married a sailor, and three weeks after the marriage, he left to sail around the West Indies. He only came back to convince John’s mother to give John to his sister, Mary. Soon after, John’s mother had a breakdown. At one time, she was dating an American sailor, whom which she had a baby girl."
"I don’t think she [Margaret, who lives in Ringo's house] and Alan [taxi driver] got along, however. She kept saying that taxi drivers don’t know anything, and for the rest of our tour, Alan kept saying that we shouldn’t listen to anything he says because he doesn’t know anything."
"Next, Alan took us to see the university where John Lennon had attended. He never did graduate. He thought it was much too strict a school. We also saw the Liverpool School for Boys, which is now the Lennon School of Performing Arts."
Question about the writing credit for "A Hard Day's Night"
The page devoted to the song "A Hard Day's Night," says that Lennon wrote the song. However on the list of Beatles songs (search on list of beatles songs) the writing is credited to both Lennon and McCartney. Does anyone know which it is?
All Beatle songs written by Lennon and/or McCartney are credited to both. This was an agreement between the two of them early on. However, after the first few years, they rarely wrote anything 50/50. Often they bounced ideas off each other, helped finish songs and were in a more-or-less friendly rivalry. Some songs were completely written by one (for example "Yesterday" is 100% McCartney). There's been much published on who actually wrote what, and for most individual song articles, Wikipedia mentions who wrote the song, while giving the official songwriting credit as Lennon/McCartney. I believe the article Lennon-McCartney goes into further detail on how they wrote the songs. freshacconcispeaktome17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with freshacconci. Even McCartney can't remember the exact details (and Lennon got one or two wrong) but legally they are as they are: Lennon-McCartney, or Lennon/McCartney, depending on your opinion. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've converted the template to {{WPBannerMeta}} at User:Dendodge/Sandbox/Beatles template. The only differences between mine and the current one (besides aesthetics) is that, unless |display= is defined, it displays 'Beatles-related', regardless of the |john |paul |ringo |george etc. and that it uses different categories (that couldn't be helped). Do I have the go-ahead to copy my code to the actual template and redirect the categories? I figured asking here would get a more prompt reply...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp14:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that 'merge' 'merge or delete' etc. quality ratings don't work - but it uses the extended scale, so it has just about all of them...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network)08:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me. I would only make one suggestion: take out the "is also" for the other categories, as it is a bit repetitive.--andreasegde (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I was using the wording of the current template - I see it's been removed now, but generally only one of those would appear anyway...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It might conflict with his work with ELO, so maybe a new page could be started? "Jeff Lynne and The Beatles"? I'm sure there's enough text to go in it.--andreasegde (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
"No objection from me"? We're the only ones talking about it, and we totally agree! :)) When I've finished The Quarrymen, I might drum my fingers on the table for a bit, and then do it, unless someone (hopefully) starts it before me. Lovely to have you with us, Dendodge.--andreasegde (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This page used to be fairly lively in the past; but a lot of people drifted away. The stopping of the newsletter and that horrible "the Beatles"/"The Beatles" debate put people off, IMO. After The Quarrymen has become a GA there will only be Ringo Starr and George Harrison to do (Yoko Ono and Heather Mills? Hmmm...) FA articles will be almost impossible to achieve because articles like McCartney's are too large and are constantly being changed, and articles like Mimi Smith are considered "not notable enough" to be FA (this is from personal experience, BTW). Such is life... --andreasegde (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this ought to be restarted. My bot could deliver it (it's already approved for delivery using AWB) and I'd be happy to write some (or most) of it...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network)12:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I could help if you would like (but maybe it could be shorter/smaller than the old one). It could detail the problems on some pages, like watching out for editors that cause trouble; deleting free-use photos for no reason, or uploading photos as free-use when they are not. I think (in my heart-of-hearts) that George and Ringo should be GA articles, so as to complete the picture. I'm all for it — if you hadn't guessed that already... :)) My vote's a YES. :)--andreasegde (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Be happy to receive it, although this area is not one of my primary interests any more... some of the work done in how the newsletter archives are organised and the templates used could be reused I expect. The previous newsletter suffered perhaps from being too big and from running out of things to say. ++Lar: t/c17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"I read the news today oh boy!" I'm definitely a Beatles editor, and I was wondering why we didn't have a paper. I'm assuming that you had one before I joined. Anyway, count me in. Cheers, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm certainly happy to receive it, but I don't edit on Wikipedia as much as I used to, so I'm not likely to be of much help in the writing/editing portion of the newsletter. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉07:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Issue 13, and for my bot to do it I'll have to change the way a delivery method is chosen (but keeping all the same options)...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network)11:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If we wait, it might not go out until the middle of the month, which will squeeze the next one in August, or maybe only send one out when there is enough info? Whatever you decide is fine with me.--andreasegde (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's batteries isn't it? Good grief, forget the in-built self-destruct problems with mobile phones, laptops, digital cameras, electric shavers, travelling alarm clocks and everything else, it's always the soddin' batteries (or you're abroad and you forgot the international plug sockets... :))--andreasegde (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, maybe it would be good to send it out to active as well as inactive participants, as it might alert them to the fact that the project is alive and kicking...--andreasegde (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just couldn't be bothered to convert everyone's sig to a talk page link, so I only did active. If you want to add inactive to the list, it'd be good...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network)11:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Revert war brewing concerning the order of The Beatles' lineup
User talk:Koavf is insisting on listing The Beatles' members in alphabetical order: George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr instead of the traditional order they are listed which is John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr. How should we handle this issue? This is with Template:The Beatles and is also listed with George Harrison mentioned first in Portal:The Beatles/Intro. What is the proper order to list The Beatles? Since Ringo joined the group, they have always been John, Paul, George and Ringo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It's silly to list them in anything other than the traditional order. John, Paul, George, Ringo is how they are listed in the sleevenotes of all their early albums, and in songwriting credits on songs which all four have written. I bet that nearly every Beatles book that starts with the group lineup will use that order too. Shouldn't be too hard to come up with sources.Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ran across this by accident. I've seen much lamer edit wars than this — this is important! It's definitely, positively, canonically, John Paul George and Ringo. To do anything else will cause major metaphysical disorder in the universe! Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it was Ringo George Paul and John? (This only works if you look in a mirror :) As the Germans/Austrians would have it, it is Starr Ringo, Harrison George, McCartney Paul, and Lennon John.
Right about Austrians/Germans, as they put the forename first. Try meeting someone called David Martin. Martin David? :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It was bad enough when this SAME USER went through back in March (or so) and changed a bunch of "the"s to "The"s over a couple days, and I both warned him (with references to the discussion page on that godawful debate) and tipped off an admin or two. This dude appears to just plain NOT GET IT, and seems to want to run tra-la with a butcher knife through a field full of sacred cows, and wonder why he keeps stepping in... you get the idea. Beware the Wannabe. Zephyrad (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A thought. Why not list them alphabetically giving their full names in the first paragraph of the article, and state there that "they are traditionally referred to as John, Paul, George and Ringo and as such they are listed in that order in this and related articles"? That way it satisfies both the abcdarians and the traditionallists. Grutness...wha?03:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my home internet's still down and my school won't let me download anything - let alone AWB. I'll do it manually later...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network)07:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Er, thanks - it was my last day of school and I had to spend all of my break, lunch and form time delivering it manually - I have to chec in now and then from my Grandma's stone-age dial-up Internet explorer desktop when I can, so I won't be too active for 6 months or so. Mum did say she'll buy me a new laptop charger, so my fingers are crossed...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network)14:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 950 articles are assigned to this project, of which 267, or 28.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
The Independent newspaper apologised to Mardas on this page. Quote: "We accept that he [Mardas] did not claim to have invented electric paint, a flying saucer or a recording studio with a "sonic force field" or cause his employers to waste money on such ideas." Wikipedia: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." This could seriously ruin any chance of taking the article any further. Comments? (Please reply on the article's talk page)--andreasegde (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
