User talk:John Cardinal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "Hey Jude"

You mentioned that the Craig Cross reference might be easier for some people to find, but the Mojo reference by Chris Hunt is the original usage of the Ken Scott quotation and it is quite easy to find on the author's own website, which is included on the reference link. The original source of the quote (ie. the Mojo feature, by Chris Hunt) is reprinted in its entirety in the following book and thus widely available...

As people can either find the original source by linked directly to the original article on a website, and find it in a widely available book, I imagine that would be the easiest reference to use. By all means keep the Cross reference if you think it helps, but as a secondary source it seems superfluous

Thanks for letting me know about this.
The Chris Hunt website entry is easy to find today, but it might not be tomorrow. Websites have a way of disappearing, and we need look no further than the "Hey Jude" article for evidence of that. When I was cleaning up citations on that page last week (only got about halfway through them), there were multiple broken citations involving different sites. Craig Cross, for example, took all his online stuff down and that has orphaned links all over Beatle articles. I suspect he did it because he published a book from the material. A similar thing could happen with Chris Hunt; there's no reason to suspect it but again, websites tend to reorganize, disapppear, etc., and so references to books are better. Having both the book and the web site is covers two bases: convenience now and resilience later.
I don't have the 10 Years... book and so I haven't seen it and can't cite it. I don't think general references are very useful, and in fact I would delete all of them in Wikipedia. (Just a POV on general references.) On the other hand, if you have Kindersley and you want to substitute Kindersley for Cross on those specific citations, I think that's better. Kindersley sounds like a better version of the convenience/resilience combination.
John Cardinal 13:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "All You Need Is Love"

Thanks for your message. It was just that I originally added the quote as a verbatim transcript of the interview from the documentary. I think the Anthology book has a more extensive use of quotes in general, and includes some that weren't in the series while sometimes being selective with those that were. Having now checked the book, I can confirm that its quotes from Paul McCartney in respect of "AYNIL" are slightly different from those in the televised version that are used in the article. Chris 42 19:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: A Day in the Life edit

Why would you need to know when the album was recorded on the song's article? That's why I changed the date. I thought it was a bit misleading. On another note, the infobox states the single as being released on June 1, 1967, the same day as the album. Is that right? – Zone46 20:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask Me Why

Someone changed “definite” to “crisp”, which now renders the sentence meaningless. A definite ending is a live ending; the band doesn’t fade out a song when playing live. “Unorthodox” as in unusual; this song for instance changes key for its last chord, leaving it in musical terms “unresolved”. About this time Lennon & McCartney threw everything bar the kitchen sink into a song, including how they’d end them. Their songs noticeably improved when they applied more restraint. However, I can see that the point I’m trying to make might be moot, so get rid if you want.--Patthedog 13:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How about “clear-cut” or “distinct”? --Patthedog 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

You have a point, John Cardinal. I think 150 to 200 is OK, but when they get bigger they start to take over the article. I even once made one 250px on the Macca page, BTW, after I was told to sort my rectum out by one disgruntled photographer who had uploaded his own photograph. Anyway, as long as they're evenly spaced and don't crowd each other, then do as you think fit. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 13:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McCartney

You are very kind to say so. Sometimes I get a knot in my stomach when I see "You have new messages." Kind words like yours help make this experience worthwhile. Bless you for taking the time to be encouraging. --69.22.254.111 23:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles Project

Oh shoot! I'm really sorry; I thought I was editing the template page, not the talk page! Wow, I feel stupid . . . I'm so sorry. :-( --Soakologist 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi John. Thanks very much for your comment on my talk page. I can only congratulate you on your tireless adding of citations, compared to my few and far between edits. Keep up the good work! Shrub of power 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edit Explanation

Hello John, I am glad that you are doing your bit to make Wikipedia a great source of information. I think "Stampers" and not "SPAMPERS" is what you meant, correct?

If that's the case I agree that we need to get a link to a definition of stampers, and as a matter fact it was at noted at Wikiproject Professional Sound Production. Eventually someone will get to it.

Second, I reverted your edit because, you don't "transfer several takes" to the master tape, but transfer the final takes. Excluding an explanation on final takes is necessary so as not to sound confusing. You are welcome to create an explanation about what the contents of a master are, but not on that paragraph because it would become , again, cluttered and confusing.

OK, I hope you understood all this and keep on contributing. Thanks Evinatea 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Reply

Nice to chat, John. I understood what you meant to say. However, some people could have taken it out of context.

To avoid confusion, it's always good to be short and concise and if further explanations are need, add another paragraph with more elaboration.

If you wanted to add a short paragraph about it, citing "Strawberry Fields Forever" as an example, I would support and not be opposed to that.

Have a nice day Evinatea 20:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

I have noted you have examples of alternative templates on the Beatles Project talkpage. I didn't ask for comment or anything, just noted it. I suppose I really should have asked you if that was okay first, but I didn't so this is a poor second best. If you do get any flak, blame/refer them to me! LessHeard vanU 11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Mr. Cardinal's templates are truly Fab. Well done, John. andreasegde 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I especially like the first one, and think it has several advantages over the current version. Excellent work. Shrub of power 16:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

andeasegde and Shrub of Power,

Thanks for the positive feedback. Regarding the "The Beatles" template (people, albums, films, etc.), another user liked the approach overall, but felt there was too much whitespace, distributed unevenly, in the studio albums section. That's my least favorite of it too, and I am going to see what I can do about it. I will ask for you to revisit when I do that... Thanks again. John Cardinal 19:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. The pleasure was all mine - it's you doing the hard graft after all! Shrub of power 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain this.

Hello, You left a message on the dBFS discussion page (And I left you one as well) that I need to bring to your attention:

"Can someone please reveal what the real issue is here? Those links are not generating all this heat because someone thinks they are unnecessary..." John Cardinal.

I'd like to know what you meant by this, Sir. Thank you. Evinatea 03:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007

WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
Issue 011 – March 2007
Beatles News
  • On February 5, 2007, the Beatles' Apple Corps and Apple, Inc. (Apple Computer) announced a settlement of their latest trademark dispute involving use of the Apple trademark on the iTunes Music Store. In May of 2006, the High Court ruled in favor of Apple, but Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps, vowed to appeal. Evidently, in the intervening months, the two companies negotiated a settlement. The settlement is discussed in this AP story. For background on the case, see Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. For fans, this may mean that Beatle music will be available someday on iTunes. Despite rumors of a February 2007 release, the material is still unavailalble.
Project News
  • There were no Project article adoptions for the month of February.
  • Project Policy has now been altered to reflect that the use of lowercase for the letter "t" of the word "the" in the Beatles is now considered the correct rendition.
Member News
  • New members to the project since the last issue include (although the first is a long time contributor who apparently has only just found the Participants section);
Tvoz
Freshacconci
Liamshaw
John Cardinal
Mezlo
ErleGrey
Captain Waters
Hey jude, don't let me down
Issue of the Month

See below. There is genuine concern that the Newsletter is getting stale in terms of content and variety, and that the same individuals are featured each month. Furthermore, lack of "news" is hindering the timely distribution as the editors wait for something to report. All Project editors are encouraged to give their news, suggestions and thoughts to keep the 'Letter vital and interesting. If making direct contributions do not appeal, please give a mention on the Newsletter talkpage and it will be incorporated!

From the Editors

Help is needed for the job of putting future Newsletters together. The present incumbent is finding it difficult to reflect the breadth of the Project, focusing on much the same individuals and articles each month, and has decided to beg for contributions from other individuals. Interested persons need only start working on next months issue to qualify. It really is that simple!

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 012 – April 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!

Contributors to this Issue
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 00:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing, quoting

This looks right to me. If you want to quote directly, you can use quotation marks and mention the source's name. Jkelly 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

What I was getting at was I thought the tape loops section should indicate that it's a direct copy of the given source. That's easy to do when quoting a line of text, we just use quotes. For the bullet-point list that is used in the article, using quotation marks disrupts the presentation of the material. On the other hand, just indicating the source via the superscript notation (as it is now) indicates the evidence came from the source but not that the entire section is a word for word copy, broken into a bullet point list. I am not suggesting the following, but it's an example of treating the contents differently, almost as an exhibit:
  • Tape loop one was asdf asdf sdfgsfdg dsdsaf asdfasdf
  • Tape loop two was asdf asdf sdfgsfdg dsdsaf asdfasdf sped up and played backwards
  • Tape loop three was asdf asdf sdfgsfdg dsdsaf asdfasdf cut into pieces and played only 13.2 times
Source: Ian MacDonald, Revolution in the Head [3]
Assume that the superscript would be the usual link to the Notes section. The above looks more like what you'd see in a magazine article that uses a chart from some other source. Is there a convention for presenting such material in Wikipedia? John Cardinal 13:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks once again

Hi John, thank you very much for your helpful response to the 'Tomorrow Never Knows' problem (disappeared sections). I don't know what I'd have done without you! Shrub of power 15:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Can't Do That

Sourced! So, am I right in thinking that you’re not prepared to accept my word for it? Well…I’ve never been so insulted, apart from the wife.

The solo just doesn’t sound like Harrison. You Tube is a terrific source, but I can’t tell who plays the solo on the mimed stuff (the Beatles hated miming, and never took it seriously) and the camera always assumes it’s Harrison on the live stuff and doesn’t clearly show Lennon. Anyway, I’ll take it out for the time being. You Tube also has the cut song / scene from the film, though am I right in thinking the website can’t be used as a reference? The slightly technical stuff regarding the music is sort of self evident, unless I cite the sheet music (I play the guitar and find those clever parts in their songs worth a mention - like glimpsing the meaning of life). Anything else just stick in a [citation needed]. Cheers, --Patthedog 11:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The

It's alright John, it's just the usual stuff about who decides policy. Lots of us were totally 'effed off about the policy being decided by "a smaller group of people" before, rather than what most of us think. I do believe this new policy actually gives the correct version, so it will help us all. It's part and parcel of what happens here - it's usually great, but we have to put up with the horrible bits as well. Have fun. andreasegde 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not the usual stuff. The last process involved people on both sides of the issue, involved a lot of discussion, and was finally decided based primarily on input from editors with professional-level skills. Personally, the books I have show "the Beatles" exactly as the last policy decided, so you can be cheesed off about the decision but it was arrived at after the appropriate process and came to a reasonable conclusion. You and a small group of like-minded folks changed it without involving the other side and that's not acceptable. John Cardinal 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't it changed from "The" to "the", meaning that it's currently at where you would like it to be?
Anyway, the point of my message: I founded the project and yet I haven't a clue where the policy stands. The arguing over the casing of one letter got too much for me, so I took it off my watchlist. I'm not suggesting you have to do that, but I am suggesting there's no need to withdraw from the project over this trivial issue. The ill feeling is very unfortunate but it will fade with time. You're obviously a good editor and the project will suffer without you, so I hope you'll reconsider. --kingboyk 00:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
First, thanks for the compliment. I am trying to get better as an editor; writing for an encyclopedia takes some practice. I do have a background in analyzing evidence and recording sources, and that helps.
My dissatisfaction is 100% about process. My opinion when I first became aware of the debate was that "The Beatles" was their name. After that, I was swayed by the arguments of the people with credentials, especially because every reference I saw agreed with what they described ("the Beatles" is right except for specific instances like the start of a sentence). Overall, though, the debate seemed trivial and unimportant when dozens if not hundreds of Beatle-related articles are full of fancruft and have zero or maybe a couple citations. I was prepared to let the group hash it out and then react to the decision when they did.
All that changed between the 16th and 17th. andreasegde announced that he and a few like-minded editors ("Vera Chuck and Dave, Crestville, and one or two others (who have been around Wikpedia long enough to know what we are talking about)"—seriously, what kinda effing attitude is that!!!!) decided that the policy was wrong and that for the good of the Beatle project and Wikipedia they were changing it to use "T" in a confusing array of cases, but clearly, more than was decided in the January/February discussion. By the time I saw the announcement, they had begun changing a few pages but in fairness, not many. It's hard to tell, really, how many they changed because I don't have them all on my watchlist and anyway the new rule is so involved it takes an ADiTT (Advanced Degree in the/The) to understand which letter Tt to use. The announcement was worded such that people who had worked hard to follow the process last time, such as LessHeard vanU, would at least feel unappreciated and at worst insulted and either way like they have been wasting their time. More importantly, it was a clear example of the absolute wrong way to make a policy decision. WP has all these damn policies but now I wonder why? I don't really care which way the decision comes down—except I want to be able to understand it and easily apply it when I edit—but I do really care how project decisions are made. If some single-minded cabal can ignore the process and make policy decisions, then there is absolutely no point in being a project member. The only thing project membership brings is input to the decision making process, and even there it's not like non-members don't have a voice. In my opinion, membership is a bad idea under the present conditions; it implies that I agree with the actions of people who act without respect for their colleagues. They think they are more important because they've been working on a few important articles. Arrogance. Include me out of that. Back to the story: I did not act in haste; I waited around a few days until some of my anger subsided, and made some comments that I hoped would make other people notice that the process was being undermined. I also waited to see how andreasegde would react to LessHeard vanU's exit, which I thought might happen and came pretty quickly. When andreasegde surfaced, he was even more arrogant than before, and I decided enough was enough. I don't care to waste my time on something like this.
As you pointed out, the policy article still says "t". It was not changed, and the policy article has it as I think it should be based partly on the arguments and evidence presented by the "t" people, but more based on the accepted process being followed; the debate in January/February involved both sides and was mostly a passionate discussion rather than a bar fight. After the midnight raid, I chose not to mention that the policy article page hadn't been changed because I figured less people will read the talk page than will read the article itself. As it stands now, the official policy doesn't agree with what andreasegde has pronounced. That raises the possibility that he doesn't know it hasn't really been changed, which wouldn't surprise me, or this whole thing is a hoax/ploy or something by which the "cats" (as they have evidently described themselves) make a point to the "pigeons" (as they appear to have categorized the other side) about how the decision was made last time. (They weren't paying attention, and evidently that is Less's fault, or anybody's fault but theirs). If it is some ploy, it's WP:POINT, even if it's a talk page, and whether it is or isn't real, I can't be bothered with that sort of foolishness when membership has no particular privileges. It was alright when they were were grousing every day about the policy for an effing month, but sanity ruled. Now, sanity has left with Elvis. And so has LessHeard vanU and Lukobe, who seemed like a good editor and has been around for a year. LessHeard vanU was a voice of reason, the main force behind the newsletter, the one who understood the Wikipedia policies and why they are important... if andreasegde can sleep at night after instigating LessHeard vanU's exit, I don't want to be in any group that has andreasegde as a member.
I go on too long. Sorry. Somebody (Blaise Pascal, Cicero) said, "I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote a long one."
Last comment. I will continue to edit articles as long as I have some time to do so. As is clear from my comments above (I hope), I can't be a member of the project while doing so unless something major changes. My exit may be largely symbolic but the symbolism is essential to my self-respect. Thanks again for the compliment and for bothering to take the time to talk to me about this; I appreciate it. — John Cardinal 03:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Sad to see you leave the project John. I empathise totally with you, and I feel gutted that it's had to come to this. I am sick of the argument, and I haven't really contributed that much to it at all. It has turned reasonable editors into unreasonable ones, and has instigated (as you said) the exiting from the project of some valued editors. I'm sticking with the project and staying largely out of the debate, but I respect your decision. Thanks for being a voice of reason and helping me when I needed it i.e. most of the time. Good to know you'll still be around. Shrub of power 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
John, I don't know whether it should be "the" or "The", but I do know that your edits and your commentaries show your integrity as an editor and as a human being. I hope you will reconsider, and continue editing this subject.--Mike Sorensen 13:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helter Skelter

John -- I know very little about the operation of wikipedia. I'm posting the present note on your talk page simply to let you know I've responded to the comment you posted on mine. I wasn't sure where I was supposed to post my response.John B of Philadelphia 10:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am still around

It is just that I am not going to be active in the Project (the debating bits and policy application side, and the Newsletter) for a bit. If you need any help or stuff please feel free to call on me, if you think I can help. Please stick around the Project, it needs reasoned debate.

Thank you for the kind words. LessHeard vanU 20:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. --Lukobe 00:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for a very nice comment John

Especially because it comes from someone like you with such a great edit history. I always try to be concise and straight to the point but from time to time I could use some support, on the heated subjects such as Audio mastering. Most people avoid posts on Audio mastering:talk because it may result in retribution and bickering, but if you ever feel like posting your comments there it would be very cool.--Mike Sorensen 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Beatles

Hello, I left another comment in the talk page explaining my position. Essentially, if you want to make the claim that the Beatles are the greatest selling artists of all time, you will need another source besides the RIAA, which is only making the claim for the United States (hence my additions in the lead). Thank you.UberCryxic 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the talk over there. Except--why do you get to decide it needs more citations? Are you the boss? John Cardinal 19:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I wrote here to let you know immediately. I like to inform people of what's going on as soon as possible. I'm no boss and I'm not trying to be one. I've made a new suggestion on the talk page that I think is appropriate and useful given the circumstances. Check it out and tell me what you think. Thank you.UberCryxic 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrapping problems in George Harrison

Hi John,

Because we made a change to the {{fact}} code, please take a look at the George Harrison article in Firefox. Does the problem persist? --Kevinkor2 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helter Skelter again

John -- just wanted to let you know I've again revised the Manson information in the lead paragraph of the "Helter Skelter" entry. After reading your most-recent comment at my talk page, I realized my statement that Manson regarded the White Album songs as an "echo" of a prophecy of his might be unfounded. (You had politely indicated that, being unfamiliar with writings on the Manson crimes, you weren't sure that what I'd written was right.) The said statement was something I'd written without thinking, an impression I thought I'd recently gained from some remark I'd somewhere encountered from one of Manson's followers. (The encountered remark, as I vaguely recall it, or am imagining it, was something like, "And then the White Album came out and Charlie was saying, 'See? The Beatles are talking about the same thing we're talking about.'") My statement might have been right; but because I can't back it up, I've changed it. The revised statement is that "Helter Skelter" was one of several White Album songs "taken by Charles Manson as part of an elaborate prophecy" etc. I hope you'll regard that as still satisfactorily addressing your concern we discussed on my talk page (i.e. when we were discussing interpret and misinterpret). I've provided the revised statement with a link to a supporting page at a website of Charles Watson, one of the convicted killers. Should you choose to respond to the present comment, just do so here; you don't have to go to my talk page. I'll check this page a few times.John B of Philadelphia 07:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something about Pattie

The FACT tag is about the "commonly believed" part.

Who believes that? "Everybody"

Who said they believe it? George Harrison

as in the quote:

"Everybody presumed I wrote ["Something"] about Pattie"

which is in the next sentence and cited. What am I missing here? Perhaps the "is" should be changed to "was?" I know I fell among the "everybody" until I read it here today (not that that can be used here).

(John User:Jwy talk) 08:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olives, and the branches thereof

I left a detailed answer on my talk page. andreasegde 20:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helter Skelter thrice

Acting on your information about the allmusic guide, I've given the first paragraph of the "Helter Skelter" entry some attributed remarks about "proto-metal" and "unique textures." (For me, "unique textures" has the value of communicating what I was trying to get at with "sui generis," to which you rightly objected.) With the addition of those remarks, the comment about the song's noisiness and the comment about Manson's reaction to the recording have been separated, after having been briefly spliced, pointlessly (by me), into a single sentence.John B of Philadelphia 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

PS John -- I'm thinking of a first sentence revision: "'Helter Skelter' is a Lennon/McCartney song written by Paul McCartney and recorded by the Beatles on the White Album." In other words, I'm considering eliminating credited from the Lennon/McCartney mention. The thinking is a further extension of your idea that the link to the Wikipedia Lennon/McCartney page provides the explanation. If, incidentally, you feel our exchanges re Helter Skelter should be moved en masse to the Helter Skelter talk page, feel free to move them from both your page and mine; being a Wikipedia novice, I'm unsure whether or how to do that. Finally -- I'm not sure whether the The before Beatles and White Album is supposed to be capitalized or whether it's supposed to be included in the links.John B of Philadelphia 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/User_talk%7EJohn_Cardinal_a441.html"