Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BetacommandBot (talk | contribs) at 21:37, 5 December 2007 (notifing user of invalid Fair Use claim WP:NONFREE). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive links

• Archive 1

George Martin

I have put it up for GA. --andreasegde 10:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

re Two of Us

Not an area of expertise of mine. Try asking at the Admins noticeboard/Intervention. For what it is worth I think you are correct; the Beatles song is the primary and long established use of the name, and everything else (including the film) devolves from it. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC) ps. Nice to see you are still around.

Beatles stuff

First, thanks for not just mass-reverting my edits-- I am not a fan of edit wars either, which is why I haven't changed the Mal Evans thing. Second, I frankly made several changes to the article and can't remember all of them, so if you don't like the crediting on specific songs I'd like to know-- I don't think we actually disagree on too many songs, as what I did mostly was credit Lennon for songs where it was clear Lennon had contributed. On "Norwegian Wood," from all sources, McCartney contributed some lyrics and the middle eight only. He says in Miles that it was "60-40 to John" because "it's John's idea and John's melody." In other cases (I count "I Wanna Be Your Man" and "Taxman" in this category) this sort of "60-40" case is treated as "60, with 40," and only the "50-50" cases are given joint credit. For example, the original lyrics Harrison wrote for "Taxman" are significantly different and significantly poorer from those of the finished version-- Lennon basically rewrote the song with Harrison. I don't mind this state of affairs (are you really comfortable a "Harrison/Lennon" credit for "Taxman"?). I think my edits were generally fair-- I credited Paul as writer on "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." I think the article did previously have a McCartney bias-- I can't remember specifics but the article seemed to be giving credit to McCartney for minor contributions while witholding credit from Lennon for contributions in many cases. I came to the conclusion that the article should err on the side of actually crediting minor contributions. If Paul added middle eights to many of John's songs, then Lennon contributed his share of middle eights and made significant lyrical improvements to Paul's songs-- can you imagine how lame "I Saw Her Standing There" would have sounded opening as, "She was just seventeen/Never been a beauty queen"? I am a big fan of McCartney in the Beatles-- I think "Let It Be" is probably the band's best song, and I also think his songs from the Rubber Soul period are some of the band's best. I am slightly skeptical of claims that he wrote many of his songs completely on his own basically because of his solo career was so poor in direct comparison to Lennon's-- compare his first two solo albums, "McCartney I" and "Ram," with Lennon's first two albums-- "Plastic Ono Band" and "Imagine." Compare Lennon's first true solo single, "Instant Karma," with McCartney's first solo single, "Another Day." Compare also the songs on Lennon's "comeback" album, Double Fantasy with those on McCartney's "comeback" album, "Tug of War"-- which ones do you still hear on the radio 20+ years later? Allon Fambrizzi 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

Update: I think with so many of the songs from the "Rubber Soul" period in controversy ("In My Life", "Girl", e.g.) it makes much more sense to credit all of the songs where both contributed as "Lennon-McCartney." So "Norwegian Wood," "Girl," "Michelle", "Drive My Car", "Day Tripper," "We Can Work It Out," "Wait", and "In My Life" are all now "Lennon-McCartney"-- as they should be.

Allon Fambrizzi 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi

Sorry

Yes, I knew, but it slipped my mind.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 19:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Beatles Songs

A lot of dubious and (in my opinion) ridiculous changes have been made to the article "List of Beatles Songs" by someone named "Allon Fambrizzi" (among these naming "Hey Jude" as "McCartney with Lennon").

I wrote about these on the talk page for the article--I'd really be thankful and appreciative if you checked out what I said and responded with your input. CinnamonCinder 01:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Let It Be (song) italics

I thought I was on the right track, but obviously I wasn't. Feel free to change them.--andreasegde 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Beatles participants' page

Why are you not on the paticipants page? It's nice to know who you are working with... --andreasegde 19:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I have archived the quiz questions, but they're telling me they'll delete it. I have changed the name to Archive, but is there something I'm doing wrong? --andreasegde 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone fixed it. (Whew!) --andreasegde 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Extra track listing template

I've responded on my talk page. --PEJL 16:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The White Album

So, I was looking at Image:The White Album.jpg, and saw that your addition of FU Rationale was challenged by User:Szyslak. Was there a discussion of this anywhere? Curious. --evrik  15:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware he disputed it. Based on your message, I looked, and he has since changed the FU rationale to apply solely to the album, and not to the songs on the album. (What is an album if not the collection of the songs??? The artwork?) In general, I can't be bothered getting into FU fights beyond the basics. The fair use police (FUP) are out of control on WP and all the tools and momentum is on their side. Regarding tools, they have bots that add warnings--with many false positives--and then they have bots that delete the images. On the other side, it's not possible to use bots to resolve the issues. The FUP are akin to religious zealots and will not respond to reason. They are negatively affecting the quality of WP but that doesn't matter to them: they have decided that an overly restrictive reading of the rules is absolutely necessary or all hell will break loose. Meanwhile, no nults or bolts even need tightening and nothing at all is loose. Still, fighting with them just isn't productive. Life is too short. John Cardinal 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:GeorgeMartin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeMartin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RamMcCartneyBackCover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RamMcCartneyBackCover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)