User talk:Patthedog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Beatles trivia on the chopping block

Dear Beatles editors, I have just seen a header that “The Beatles trivia“ is being considered for deletion. I would like you to take a look at it and vote to keep, or delete. The consensus will win the day, as they say…. I will not vote, as I have been personally involved in the construction of the page. andreasegde 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

Oh ta very much! That's the effect I love about it. Cheers. What's this about Please Please Me though? Is it not up to scratch? (BTW I'm sure the song is about oral sex - possible 69ing)--Crestville 18:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

But "please please me like I please you" sounds like a plea to a love to just fucking get it right for once! I'll take a look at the page tommorrow.--Crestville 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Saw Her Standing There...

...should be the very first words in the article. You deleted the "intro" portion of the article and substituted your detailed rewrite, which could or should be the second paragraph. It's like you're jumping into the middle of it. Wahkeenah 21:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aim to Please

I don't think you're wasting your time at all. However, you arewcorrect in saying a lot of info on the album page is actually more detailed than the info on the song page, so what I would suggest is incorperate the material on the album page on the song page and leave a condensed version on the album page. However, I would not reccomend simply restoring the article to how it was before you're edits as the song summeries were not very good.

Me only real critisism is be careful not to be too POV. We all love The Beatles, but, so as not to upset the minority of weirdos who don't, we can't put stuff like "Nothing was ever going be the same again, but we just had to wait a little longer……". It's not really befitting of an encyclopedia article.

Also, I'm not sure how much of the article you wrote, but it is badly sourced. I removed the bit which said "And the fact that it had been written by two members of the group meant that it broke the mould" because their is no source or referance to prove that this is true. In addition, I have also placed several citation requests next to less outlandish unsourced statements such as ""Ask Me Why" was mainly a John Lennon composition and was written in early 1962". Presumably you read this somewhere, so all you need to do is find the source and provide the book name/internet site, authour, date and page number in referance brackets - like this: ^[1] - and a footnote will appear in the notes section which I have set up. It shouldn't be hard seeing as you have clearly researched the topic well, it's just a matter of finding the sources! If you need any help with that just give me a shout.--Crestville 10:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie McCreadie

Hi. That's a great story about Eddie. I've never add the pleasure of meeting him myself, though I've met a few of his team mates before. I'm not sure if they ever trained at the Bridge, but the sessions were definitely a lot less formal. Ossie, Hudson et al used to join the fans for a beer afterwards! Well a lot of them were fans themselves, born within spitting distance of the Bridge. As for JT, well I'm sure if you got past the electric gates and the security guards, he'd be happy to let you in. Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be, eh? SteveO 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I just read The Beatles by Bob Spitz, and I thought I'd put some of the interesting song-related info into the various articles. Nareek 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Can't Do That

The one thing I would say is that these articles should always note the Lennon/McCartney byline as the official credit, even though one or the other may have done the lion's share of the writing. Nareek 16:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: removal of MacDonald ref in Credits section. I don't see how it conflicts. On page 83 (I mistakenly put 95 before), he says that both Lennon and Harrison play lead guitar, which does not preclude a solo by Lennon and lead guitar throughout by Harrison. He also is the source of the other instrumentation and for those reasons I believe the citation should be restored. John Cardinal 19:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humour (Ouch!)

Nice one—the generation gap can always be bridged with a spot of daft humour. DVDs? There are lots out there; no idea which one to recommend. Try these: Monty Python, Four Yorkshiremenand The argument sketch. andreasegde 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot these: The Parrot Sketch - SPAM. andreasegde 11:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's it. These are good! Cheers.--Patthedog 11:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ask Me Why

I changed "definite" to "crisp". I don't agree that the sentence is now meaningless, but I don't really like "crisp" either. Is there a better word than either of those two? I considered "abrupt" but that had a slightly-negative connotation that wasn't appropriate. Got any suggestions? John Cardinal 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"clear-cut" is fine with me. If I come across a precise musical term for it I'll let you know and we can decide if that's better or not. Thanks. John Cardinal 15:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You Can't Do That

I like the additions/changes to "You Can't Do That", but they should be sourced. John Cardinal 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julia Lennon

If you want the whole story about Julia's death and where she is buried... 212.241.67.98 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks.--Patthedog 17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Let me start by saying that I don't mind cleaning up citations: it's a much easier problem than searching sources to see if an unsourced addition is supported by one of them. I applaud your desire to improve the citations you add. Also, I am not an expert. I know how to use the WP templates, and I've done a lot of work that is supported by citations outside of WP. In that case, I used citation tools, too. I can't quote the Chicago Manual of Style like some people...

I mostly use the cite templates which include {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} among others. The Wikipedia:Citation_templates page describes using them. Using the templates makes the article text a little harder to read when editing, but leaves the citation formatting details to the template and thus helps produce more professional results IMO. I've got some saved text I use for frequently-used sources such as Lewisohn, Miles, Sheff, MacDonald, etc. I've got two versions, one for the first reference to the book (includes publisher details and ISBN), and a second for subsequent references (omits, publisher details and ISBN). The shorter version also omits the "authorlink" parameter but I mistakenly included that in some old edits.

<ref name="lewisohn1p18">{{cite book |first=Mark |last=Lewisohn |authorlink=Mark Lewisohn
 |title=The Beatles Recording Sessions |year=1988 |pages=18 |publisher=Harmony Books |location=New York
 |isbn=0-517-57066-1}}</ref>

<ref name="lewisohn1p25-26">{{cite book |first=Mark |last=Lewisohn
 |title=The Beatles Recording Sessions |year=1988 |pages=25-26}}</ref>

When editing someone else's citations, it's difficult and sometimes impossible to know which version of a book they used, and I don't add publisher, ISBN, etc. unless I verify the page number. In some recent edits, for example, someone (you?) referred to Bill Harry's encyclopedia. I've got this version:

Harry, Bill (2000). The Beatles Encyclopedia: Revised and Updated. London: Virgin Publishing. ISBN 0-7535-0481-2. 

... but the original editor had a slightly different name (The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia) and the page numbers didn't match. Rather than lookup the material, convert the page numbers, and provide a more complete and formal citation, I just converted the reference to the template form and specified only what the original editor provided.

When citing the same exact source as a previous citation (same page in a book, for example), you can use the reference name:

<ref name="lewisohn1p18"/>

<ref name="lewisohn1p25-26"/>

The "empty element" notation (tag ends with "/>") means that the citation text is defined elsewhere.

I try to make the names fairly unique so there's less danger of an inadvertent collision with another citation. So, "The Beatles Recording Sessions" is "lewisohn1", and then I add the page number to get "lewisohn1p18" or "lewisohn1p25-26". That's just one scheme and isn't used by anyone but me.

One other correction I've made a few times lately, but I have no idea if any of the edits were to citations you added, is removing any spaces between the end of the cited material and the citation reference. According to the WP Manual of Style (or some other style info on WP), the citation is supposed to follow the material without a space. It should be adjacent to the trailing punctuation, if any, like this.^[1]

Hope this helps. — John Cardinal 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Please Me (song) Philip Norman citations

I made some changes to those citations. In my first edit after yours (I made more changes on subsequent edits), I only edited stuff related to those citations so you can do a diff to see exactly what I changed. Here's a written explanation:

• I changed the "ref" name to reflect the page numbers (name="norman" --> name="norman169,163,159"). That way, when the same source pages are used, you can cite them using the empty element notation (<ref name="norman169,163,159"/>). Note: I am not confident that the three Norman citations should be together; the same citation should only be used when the source material is on the same page or same range of pages. So, for example, if one statement in the article is supported by Norman page 169, and a separate statement is supported by Norman page 163, then those citations should not be merged.
• Re point above: see how the Barry Miles refs are handled in the article now. Two different pages support two different statements. The first cite uses a long form where the publisher details and ISBN are included; the second citation, which is to a different page, uses a shorter form and has no authorlinkand it's a separate citation.
• I added commas between the page numbers ("169 163 159" --> "169, 163, 159").
• I removed the "authorlink" argument; Philip Norman does not have a Wikipedia article as far as I can tell, so the authorlink should be omitted. Note that on the second citation to the same author, the authorlink can be omitted in order to follow the wiki guideline that only the first reference to someone is linked.

Last thing: there are citations where George Martin is credited as the author of The Beatles Anthology. If that refers to the Beatles Anthology book (as it appears it does), then the long citation for page 90 would be similar to this:

<ref name="anthologyp90">{{cite book |author=The Beatles |authorlink=The Beatles
 |title=The Beatles Anthology |year=2000 |pages=90 |publisher=Chronicle Books 
 |location=San Francisco |isbn=0-8118-2684-8}}</ref>

It's possible that the person who cited that meant to cite another book, or didn't know how to cite a quote by George Martin that appears in The Beatles Anthology. Citations always refer to the book's author, not to someone quoted in the book. Care to fix that as you do more work on the page? If not, let me know and I'll do it. I have the book and I can make sure that the material cited is actually on the given page. John Cardinal 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HTML page utility

I saw your reply on my page. I try to be thorough, and I appreciate the compliment. As part of that, I often build little tools that make things easier. One such tool is a Wikipedia "citation builder" I wrote for myself. It's an HTML page that I run locally: the page is on my PC and I open it with a browser pointing to the file. There's a pull-down menu with 15 or 20 Beatle sources (Lewisohn, Miles, Sheff, etc., all the Beatle books I have), a pull-down menu for the "long" or "short" form, and a place to enter the page number. It creates the citation and puts the text in a textbox. From there, I copy and paste it into the article. If you are interested, I'll see about adding it to my web site so that you (and other people) could use it. Let me know. John Cardinal 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll move it online asap and drop you a line and a url when I do. It will probabyl take a couple days because family stuff will keep me busy today and monday is busy, too. John Cardinal 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatle citations page is online. It only works in Firefox at the moment. I've been using it for months, but I didn't bother testing IE until this morning and discovered an error. It should be easy to fix, but until I get a few minutes to do so it's Firefox only. If you have any sources you want to add, send me the info and I'll add it to the XML document that is the basis for the page. John Cardinal 16:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it for IE and Firefox. I didn't check Opera. John Cardinal 01:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you give me any sources, UK or otherwise, I will add them to the list. Basically, I need a citation to the source, and I can convert that into the format the page requires. John Cardinal 16:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looks good!

I happened by the Please Please Me (song) article today, and the citations look good! John Cardinal 23:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Saw Her Standing There

Cites/refs look good except as noted below. Should we have these discussions on the talk page associated with the articles? I have most Beatle songs on my watchlist and I'll notice your changes and comment there if necessary. I'll keep it here until I get your response.

1) The Q Collectors Limited Edition cite is weak. Do we have any more info about it? One of the two goals of a citation is to make it possible for a future reader/researcher to find the source material, and I am not sure I could find that material easily given the citation as it stands now. I assume that the reference is to a special edition of Q magazine. If so, it should probably use the {{cite journal}} template, but right now most of the parameters would be missing or perhaps inaccurate.

As I said, I don't have the magazine. I've seen (online) a Q special edition titled "The Beatles - Band of the Century" and it's possible that's the actual source but who knows? Q may have produced multiple special editions. Clearly, if another editor added the citation and you don't have access to the source, it's difficult or impossible to create a full citation, and that's probably the case here. It may be appropriate to leave the citation as is. If you can't improve it, leave it alone and hope that someone else comes along who has the source and fixes the citation.

2) Citing two different versions of Lewisohn's Recording Sessions is not optimal. In this specific case, I am pretty sure the two prominent versions (UK publisher, US publisher) were identical or nearly so. In this case, my US edition does not support the claim made in the article and so either (A) the UK and US versions are different or (B) the article has been edited such that the citation no longer supports the content. Specifically, the quote from McCartney is not accurate. For example, the US edition quote doesn't contain "he screamed with laughter." My suspicion is that someone edited the quote after it was cited, but without access to the UK edition of the book I can't be sure. If I get a few minutes I'll review the edit history and see when the citation was originally added and if the quote has been modified since that time. If it has, I'll try to fix things.

On this second point, this is a huge pain in the a** with regards to careless Wikipedia editors. They change direct quotes. They change article contents that are currently supported by citations but don't fix the text to indicate what is supported and what isn't. It's maddening, and it requires a lot of work by other editors to clean up after them. That's what I meant when I said I don't mind tidying up citations: that's easy compared to finding and fixing bogus edits.

John Cardinal 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I made an error. The "he screamed with laughter" quote is credited to a different source, not Lewisohn, and so the whole thing about the two editions is moot. I'll revisit the page and see if everything cited by the UK edition is on the same pages as the US edition, and if so, I'll change them all to the US edition. John Cardinal 13:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George singing/MacDonald

I figured I'd add a personal note here in addition to the article-specific discussion on the Talk:Love Me Do page. One aspect of citing sources that people don't like is citing evidence they believe to be incorrect. (I believe it stems from a desire to record facts as opposed to evidence.) People don't understand why evidence they believe to be incorrect should be added. We have a great example with "Love Me Do" and MacDonald's vocal credit for Harrison: not including it will devalue every other citation to MacDonald in all other song articles! If it is not included, it basically says that we (Wikipedia editors) only cite MacDonald when we agree with him. It's far better to cite evidence, and let the reader draw conclusions. A simple, evidence-based observation that MacDonald is the lone source for that vocal credit, or that n other sources do not include Harrison, or something similar, will acknowledge that we did the research and reported what we found.

Clearly, it takes judgement to determine what to include and what to exclude. If one blogger says that Harrison sang lead, we are not under obligation to include that in the article; the hypothetical blogger is not an expert and is not cited elsewhere in Wikipedia. In this case, though, Wikipedia editors have cited MacDonald extensively and he is considered an expert. It would be a POV-based exclusion to omit it. — John Cardinal 23:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tin Bollocks Alley

Er, everything okay? I gave what I thought was a general consideration of what Tin Pan Alley was, and why it related to the Beatles. I'm not sure what prompted your response... I have no problem with how you choose to edit the article. I do not have much to do with it, or any of the other related ones, any more anyway. If you want to tinker around with the wording, then fine. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, cool. It does get under your skin from time to time, I guess. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isaac

Isaac Epstein, a furniture maker from Hodan, Lithuania, immigrated to England in the 1890s at the age of 18, with his wife, Edna. After 10 years he opened a small furniture shop on Walton Road, Liverpool (way before IKEA) that was successful. (Spitz wrote “solid clientele”). Isaac’s third son, Harry, was the one who realized they could expand, as they did. Brian was born in Rodney Street. --andreasegde (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Isaac Epstein married Dinah Hyman in Manchester in 1900. Her parents Joseph and Esther were from Poland or Russia depending on which census you look at. She was one of seven children, all born here except the eldest Jacob who was born in Poland or Russia. They arrived in England about 1870. Dinah doesn't appear to be registered though the censuses say she was born in Manchester and was aged 4 in March 1881.

In 1901 Isaac and Dinah Epstein were living at 80 Walton Road, Liverpool along with Isaac's sister Rachael. He was a Furniture Broker/Shopkeeper. Isaac and Rachael born Russia and Dinah born Manchester. (Rachel I think married David Londea in 1904)

There was a a daughter called Leah born in 1912. Leah married John Casson in Liverpool in 1931. (I think) She was also called Lily.

There were other Epsteins in Liverpool, also in the furniture trade, who I would put money on them being related. They lived a few places before settling in Liverpool; Hull, Leeds, Bradford and Manchester. I reckon that's how they knew the Hymans.

Brakn (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Also Harry Epstein married Minnie/Queenie Hyman in 1933 in Ecclesall Bierlow which spans the boundaries of the counties of Derbyshire and West Riding of Yorkshire. I would think that the families must've known each other somehow - it's a fair way to Liverpool.

Minnie was born in Sheffield in 1914 to parents Louis Hyman and Annie Rachel Kamise/Kimise who had married in Sheffield in 1903.

Without actually getting the certs this is the best I can come up with. This family tree would take a good bit of time to sort out!

There's a lot using two different first names.

Brakn (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange page, but it has photos of Eppy's brother Clive and his father, Harry. --andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"until one day they were adopted by a kindly Jewish pickpocket"... I did laugh at that (and how close to the 25% and all expenses paid truth it was. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that it's called, "(D'you expect me to fix that door tonight?) Kiss Me Arse, Kate." :)) --andreasegde (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn’t that how it opens?--Patthedog (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The show I mean, not the door!--Patthedog (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh...the wonder of English humour (it makes me laugh my socks off...) I present my colleagues with this gem: "Everyone knows that the Beatles were four cockney working class chimney sweeps who grew up in olde Liverpool Town. “Can I write you a song, mister?” the cheeky little urchins would cry out to bowler-hatted gentry, until one day they were adopted by a kindly Jewish pickpocket." I am almost pissing me kecks (and I have been for the last two hours... :)) I thank you kindly. --andreasegde (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, let me thank you! Your posts are always intelligent and good humoured. I usually look for your signature first before deciding to read the threads. --Patthedog (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal

Hi! I've had a look and it seems like this falls under original research and POV rather than vandalism. The thing to remeber in these circumatanses (and the thing which always gets me in trouble) is to assume good faith.

The statement "this is a rip off of Dylan" or whatever, is unencyclopedic and opinion rather than fact, thus it does not belong in the article. If it is taken from an authority then the article should illustrate that the statement is the opinion of a notable commentator rather than presenting it as a widely held opinion (which it isn't) or the opinion of the contributer (which is non-notable). The citation is not enough given the current state of the sentence.

The main bulk of the paragraph, while interesting and notable, bears only tenuous links to the song without the lead-in sentence. It belongs rather in the Beatles main article (where I bet it's already been covered).

If you check out the wikipedia policy pages there should be articles on POV and original research which you can direct the contributer towards. If they continue to be awkward you may wish to get an admin involved. There are plenty, and some are more helpful than others, but I reccomend User:Kingboyk who will usually try help you out. Hope this helped, and let me know if you need any more help :) --Crestville (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the dicussion goes on the talk page. Again, I think there's something on wikipolicy. You just need to sort out that first sentence really, then the whole thing fits. Something like "McDonald has highlighted then influence of Bob Dylan on this song blah blah blah..." then the whole paragraph is justified :)--Crestville (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I Should Have Known Better

It looks like the dispute about this song has moved along. I think your edit(s) showing MacDonald as the source of the Dylan influence claim is an improvement. Based on his edit summaries, User:Paulito seems unaware that there is no such thing as a "fact"! — John Cardinal (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tell Me Why (The Beatles song)

I noticed you reverted my addition of the Beach Boys song-infobox in Tell Me Why (The Beatles song). All songs from the album Beach Boys' Party! link to each other via the "tracks"-section, and for consistancy it would be great if this song also would. Anyway, the song is signifigantly shorther than the Beatles version, which might be interesting for readers. It is also very normal that song-articles have multiple infoboxes (Money (That's What I Want), Dizzy Miss Lizzy, Act Naturally etc.). If you're worried about notability, I can assure you that the Beach Boys cover version is noteworthy. Hoping for a reply, ☺ Spiby ☻ 12:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)