User talk:ZincOrbie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Badfinger Escrow Account
2 Edits to Matt Slick
3 Orphaned fair use image (Image:PeteHam.jpg)
4 WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007

[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] 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] Orphaned fair use image (Image:PeteHam.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:PeteHam.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:35, 2 February 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.

The divorce case between Paul McCartney and his estranged wife Heather Mills McCartney has begun with a preliminary hearing in the London High Court on March 1, 2007. See the McCartneys Have Their First Court Date.

Chronicle Books has reissued I, Me, Mine, the 1980 George Harrison autobiography. See details in the editors page

Project News

The articles Freddie Lennon, Julia Lennon, Mimi Smith, Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans have all been promoted to Good Article status. The identity of the individual largely responsible for this outcome remains a mystery, but anyone correctly identifying said person will be treated to dinner with Sir Sean de Garde (cost of meal, air tickets, hotel and trips to houses of ill-repute will be borne by the Mighty Crestville).

There were no Project article adoptions for the month of February.

One new article has been listed in the Project Log since 1 February; namely The New World Tour, relating to the 1993 World Tour by Paul McCartney, created by the Project's Macca/Wings tours resident expert Danthemankhan.

The hottest Project pages this month have been.... Julia Lennon, Freddie Lennon, Neil Aspinall, and Mal Evans, which are now all GA, and Mimi Smith, which has been peer reviewed to see if it could be FA.

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

Hey jude, don't let me down

Apepper has been awarded a Barnstar for his considerable contributions to The Beatles' influence on music recording. LessHeard vanU has also acquired two Barnstars, and a WikiFish(!), mostly due to undue influence.

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!