User talk:ZincOrbie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Badfinger Escrow Account
2 License tagging for Image:Malevans.jpg
3 Reverting Badfinger
4 Edits to Matt Slick
5 WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 8, December 2006

[edit] Badfinger Escrow Account

You recently edited some information pertaining to Warner Bros. and Badfinger and the escrow fiasco and I did some more research and found out more information saying that it was 600,000 not 100,000. For instance a Rolling Stone Article claims this

Still Badfinger's worst problems began when the Apple contract expired and the band signed with Warner Bros., which offered more money. Shortly after the 1974 release of Wish You Were Here, Badfinger's second album for the label, an audit of a band account that had held approximately $600,000 of advance money in escrow came up empty. Warner Bros. immediately yanked the album from record stored. It had been bulleting up the charts and selling 25,000 copies a week. Although the band members hadn't raided the escrow account and the money was later returned, the momentum had been halted. "It killed the album outright;" says Molland. "It broke up the band, and Pete died six months later

Again here from the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll ...when Warner Bros., claiming (erroneously it would turn out) that $600,000 in a band escrow account was missing, pulled the album from stores.

If its alright with you I'm going to change the Badfinger article back to $600,000 and adding it was a false claim. If you have any issues with that please don't hesitate to tell me and I'm glad to see a fellow wikipedian steadfastly monitoring an article, for me I do Derek & The Dominos and I think its really beneficial when a person monitors an article, it helps prevent small vandalism that gets hidden and helps to ensure accuracy. Thanks again - Patman2648 21:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can only tell you that the Rolling Stone article is based on off-the-cuff comments by Joey Molland, and it is certainly wrong. I'm sure other articles referenced Rolling Stone, but they would be equally wrong. It is an error that is feeding on itself.

Dan Matovina and myself went through the lawsuit complaint by WB with a fine-tooth comb and there was never any claim about $600,000 missing from an account. What happened is that there were two escrow accounts set up by WB Publishing: Account 1 for $500,000, Account 2 for $100,000. The first account always had a correct balance in it, with deductions being made for two Badfinger albums. WB never complained about this account. The second account, however, was completely emptied - presumably by Stan Polley. Polley was allowed to make two deductions from the second escrow account, which should have left a balance of of about $83,000. So, in a sense, WB wanted to know where the $83,000 went.

When the dust settled in the late 1970s, the courts found Polley owed WB something like $45,000(?) (I can't remember now how they came up with a lower figure). But it has been a blatant falsehood for decades when people claim Badfinger was ripped off for "millions of dollars." When properly calculated, the actual figures are far, far lower. ZincOrbie 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

We'd best collate a list of accounts from verifiable sources then (per WP:V) and if there's a discrepancy we can just note it in the article. Thanks for the input (and apologies to Kent for butting in on his talk page, I have it on my watchlist :)) --kingboyk 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that when referencing information, Patman is correct. But there are many legitimate sources for faulty information. The cause has been Joey Molland's word being taken as gospel by reporters when the man is relying on a faulty memory, coupled with his tendency to exagerrate dollar figures. Believe me, Polley never stole "millions" from Badfinger, and Polley was never accused of taking $600,000 from WB. ZincOrbie 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, and I preempted it with a recent edit summary where I said that a music magazine feature based on interviews with band members is hardly a reliable source for fact. It might be best to find an interview source where Molland is cited as claiming it was 600,000 (and if he mentions Polley by name that would be good too) and we can quote him directly; and then find another source which disputes the figure. It's quite alright to be indefinite in our articles; if controversy exists we should document both sides and let the reader draw their own conclusions I think (WP:NPOV in a way). Do you know of sources we can use? --kingboyk 16:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. I've changed the article to use the <ref> format (as used at Apple Corps).

There are many articles online citing the $600,000 amount, but they are always offerred in paraphrase. Some are culled from Molland interviews, and others are based on previous articles. Here's a link to a discussion board that comtains article snippets that is closer to reality (and you'll note they reference the actual lawsuit). You'll have to scroll down to Badfinger:

http://velvetrope.starpolish.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=658752&page=81&view=expanded&sb=4&o=&fpart=2

I don't have my documentation handy to verify the amount right now, but I believe $183,333.33 is probably correct. I said $83,000, but it may be $183,333 because the two accounts were accessed by Polley. Remember, some deductions were legitimate although WB claimed they weren't. So the truth of the matter lay in the middle somewhere. If memory serves, Badfinger was allowed to draw escrow compensation for two LPs (Badfinger and Wish You Were Here), and for three LPs worth of publsihing (Badfinger, Wish You Were Here and Head First).

When I get a chance, I will reference my documentation and present it to you and Patman. We can then discuss how the WP article should be phrased. ZincOrbie 16:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there are three of us discussing this, and more may end up joining in, I am moving this discussion to Talk: Badfinger. Thanks ZincOrbie 16:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response ZincOrbie, I'll trust you wholeheartedly on the info, usually I just trust Rolling Stone because they're a reliable source unlike some funky internet website where I have no idea who wrote it or what his background in music is but I can easily see where Rolling Stone could have misinterpreted information. I'm glad I ran this by you so that I could find out the truth, Thanks and feel free to undo what edits I made toward the escrow information and send by a big article of the true info so I can learn for myself because I'm not very well informed on Badfinger and I hope to see you around again. Thanks again! -- Patman2648 19:07 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Malevans.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Malevans.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Badfinger

I reverted several edits made to the Badfinger article for two primary reasons: (a) They introduced 'terrific' amounts of POV, not to mention unsourced information, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article, and (b) they included a great deal of typos. I am not normally the type to revert the work put forth by others, but the person(s) who made these recent revisions needs to pay more attention to detail and remain objective to the topic. ZincOrbie 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Matt Slick

Hi, Kent. The information that Homestarmy was asking for was not a statement that Ratcliff said so-and-so, but a link (if at all possible) to the specific statement. I would imagine that the first post in this thread would suffice. HTH Justin Eiler 01:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Justin, and thanks for replying. I believe that is the link I originally had in the article to replace the citation tag, which was then reverted out by Flex. It just seemed silly to me that the section is asking for a source, one is provided (a very credible one, in my opinion), and it is called unreliable. Then the citation tag returns. ZincOrbie 02:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that was more miscommunication than anything. Homestarmy's a good egg--it's just that right now, he's badly over-worked as an Admin. Justin Eiler 02:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I suppose I was misdirecting my frustration at Homestarmy when it was actually Flex's revert that irked me. At any rate, I should refrain from getting involved in the CARM/Matt Slick wars. ZincOrbie 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Err, i'm an admin now? News to me, perhaps i'm being mistaken in this whole Matt Slick thing for somebody else? Homestarmy 02:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not an admin? (head spins) Don't mind me, Homestarmy, I'm having a day today. :D Justin Eiler 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 8, December 2006

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 008 – December 2006

Issue of the Month

Wikipedia's standards are improving all the time, with the result that many articles in The Beatles Wikiproject are being nominated for review of their FA and GA status - and many are losing that accolade. It is difficult, with such a large number of articles and the ease with which editors may make changes which are detrimental, to maintain the standard of articles, let alone improve them. As ever, members efforts are both appreciated and needed to keep the Project on course.

Beatles News

A Beatles compilation called "Love", featuring tracks remastered by George Martin (with his son Giles), has been released and has made number 1 in Canada.

The impending divorce between Paul McCartney and the former Heather Mills continues to make the pages in the tabloid press in the UK.

Project News

New to the Project Log is the nomination of four articles for consideration as suitable for collaboration, in the manner in which Paul McCartney is now being edited, once the aforementioned article is completed. The nominations are George Harrison, Apple Corp, The Beatles(!!), all proposed by Kingboyk and John Lennon, proposed by LuciferMorgan. Interested editors should make themselves known on the various article talk pages.

Three new articles have been listed in the Project Log since 1 November, being Wings tours by Kingboyk, and List of Beatles concerts and Mathew Street, both by Liverpool Scouse.

The hottest Project page this month has been Paul McCartney (see above and below).

Another Project article, I Want to Hold Your Hand, has lost its FA status and both Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and Beatles For Sale have lost their GA (Good Article) status. In the meantime, Real Love is being considered at WP:FARC. Some great news is that Paul McCartney has passed its nomination for GA status, although with the polite request that the introduction be looked at.

Member News

New members to the project since the last issue include mrmaroon25, K yo cat and "I Am the Eggman".

From the Editors

If one is to be mercenary about the subject, it should be noted that Paul McCartney is going to be more noteworthy than usual in the near future as his divorce case comes to court. In that case it is great to note that a small group of Project Members (plus another individual who does not feel compelled to register himself despite important contributions) have worked very hard, and in an atmosphere of good humour, to take the McCartney piece to a succesful Good Article nomination. Perhaps this is the method to use for future articles, a small dedicated team concentrating on one subject at a time. Of course, all members are invited to join any existing group or even go about forming their own. Please note any such action in the Project Log.

If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!

Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 009 – January 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!