This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

As part of my work on Wikipedia I counter vandalism by reverting destructive edits that damage the encyclopedia. If I've made a mistake and reverted what you believe was a constructive edit, please accept my apologies and leave a message to tell me what I've done.

This user is a recent changes patroller with Lupin's Anti-vandal tool!

Hello, PL290. You have new messages at User_talk:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool.
Message added 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Terrillja _talk 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvement. Tony (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But where is this discussed? I'm unsure why the separate section for older nominations is there at all if reviewers aren't encouraged to look at them first. Tony (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. PL290 (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My solution to make your script work with mine can be found at User:Gary Queen/vector.js. I don't actually know why that solution works, but it does; for some reason, even if your script is placed after mine, your script executes first. So I just wrapped your script in yet another hook to ensure that it runs last. As for your suggestion, I added it to the top of User:Gary King/nominations viewer.js; you can see there are a few dozen suggestions already. You can make suggestions for the script on my talk page or Wikipedia talk:Nominations Viewer, it doesn't matter to me. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. __meco (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PL290; thanks for all your comments in your FAC review of No Line on the Horizon. You caught some errors and slip-ups that had been missed up to that point, and put forth some really good and useful suggestions. I've responded to all of your comments on the review page and thought that I should just drop you a quick note so that you can revisit them and see if they have been addressed to your satisfaction. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a pleasure to collaborate again. I'm pretty busy right now in the real world as I have been for about a month, but toward the end of June I should be able again to devote time and focus to an FA push. Here are my first thoughts on possible targets:

• The Big Three of Rock (Elvis, Beatles, and The Wiggles...er...I mean, Dylan) are all FA'd. So some classic figure in the very next tier of popular music. I'd go for James Brown or Neil Young. Johnny Cash had a fascinating career. I could even get excited about the Stones if pulled into it.

• In addition to bringing the Sex Pistols FA up to snuff, I've done a decent amount of sporadic work on the other two bands in the Big Three of Punk (The Clash and Ramones, basically The Wiggles in black leather).

Interested to hear about what you may have been eying as prospects.

Congratulations on the Lennon. I only noticed the FAC toward the end of its run, and by the time I had time to sit down and comment, it had already been promoted. I have just one substantive question concerning the instruments he played. Once I sign off here, I'll write that up and post it to the article Talk page. Regards, and looking forward to working together again, DocKino (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Marley...Frank Sinatra...Rolling Stones....ummm......Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All suggestions from both duly noted. Yeah, pretty busy myself these months; end June sounds a possible. Could be virtually any kind of article really. But another musical artist is my obvious thought too, or possibly an album, or a song. PL290 (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since uve edited this article, I am asking if ull help deal with this editor. User:90.51.164.24 has been changing sourced content on the Here I Stand (Usher album) and Usher discography, as well as 90.22.246.70 who could be the same editor since their edits are exactly the same and were made not too far apart from eachother. Dan56 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually edit or watchlist those articles, but I probably reverted something in passing that came up on the recent changes list. I reverted the latest nonsense for you this morning after I got your message. I don't have admin rights on this site, so there's nothing I can do about the IP. If the problem continues, you can report it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. PL290 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Click here [1] and scroll down to forum member Elvis the Pelvis and follow the thread. Will leave you to draw your own conclusions! Rikstar⁴⁰⁹ 13:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mind boggles ... will have a look in due course, but anyway, greetings! PL290 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PL290, I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22.E2.80.93present.22_in_article_body regarding a passage that you removed from the WP:MOS back in March of this year. The original debate that resulted in your edit doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual passage; do you think you could swing by and clarify for us if this passage (quoted at the talk page) can be reinstated? Several of us have been using the removed passage as a guideline for more than a year, and the disappearance sort of caught us off guard. Thanks. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the originally linked discussion had confused me. Thank you so much for linking us to that relevant discussion. Looks like there isn't really any cause for change then. Much appreciated! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Sorry About The Double U I Thought Shippuden Was Supposed To Be Spelled With Two Us I Am Sorry For What Ive Done Im New Here So Im Getting The Hang Of It —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyrihance (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know about this. I see in the history that your change to an article was reverted by another editor. The editor said it was for consistency. You can see the editor's comment in the history for that article. No harm done! PL290 (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The oil spill has just reached St.George Island.We are not happy about it so people are trying to gather it up but not until another month.Joy BaggettJoycorley (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of restoring the semi-protection as there seems to be a fair bit of vandalism, but I thought I'd check with you first in case you prefer the pending changes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that's appropriate, I have no objection. Perhaps hold off a couple more days to see if it persists? PL290 (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about a mention and brief info on the Ex-Beatles first releases in 1970 for The Beatles article? The LP's (as you probably know) are completly different in content, musical style, packaging (and every other way). Listening to all four albums in succession you'd never know they were in the same band the year before!! (Lennon's primitive sounding "Plastic Ono Band" LP, McCartney's solo performance, playing-all-instruments "McCartney" LP, Harrison's Spector produced-wall of sound, "All Things Must Pass" triple set, and Ringo's 40s standards tribute for his Mum, "Sentimental Journey" The LPs clearly show the different directions they wanted to go on their own. Would make an interesting, revealing section for Post Beatles. The only descriptions of post Beatles LPs, other than a brief mention are "The Concert for Bangladesh" and "Ringo". Although "Ringo" is a historic partial "re-grouping" of the band, the first LP from each of them as an Ex-Beatle and solo artist should also be described, or at the very least, mentioned. Many Beatles books cover their solo work to some degree. I have solo Beatles archives and books, and can make a proper contribution on the four albums with references. (Vegavairbob (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It's a nice idea to get in somewhere. They certainly are very different, and if you can produce a well-sourced section devoted to that topic, it will be worth doing. My immediate reaction though is that the Beatles article is probably not the place, as it must summarize the band's entire history and is a fair size already, and we should keep in mind our article size guideline. The Post-breakup (1970–present) section, of necessity, doesn't dwell in detail on any one point. But I think the article The Beatles' breakup might be a good place to put it. What do you think abou that? PL290 (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say..(I think you know what's best). Thanks (Vegavairbob (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hello PL290. I saw your edit summary today. Here is the edit where someone used your name [2]. As I look at it I think that the editor copy and pasted a comment that you had made earlier in order to respond to it directly without sticking his edit in between other edits that had already been made. I see this on IMDb message boards all of the time so I think it was a one-off situation and not somebody who is messing with your signature. Of course you may have already figured this out so my apologies for taking up your time. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 13:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Yeah, looking at the history link you dug out, I agree it doesn't seem malicious, but it goes against WP talk page etiquette to place an addition on a talk page with someone else's signature! Whatever the intent, the effect from then on is that I placed that line. User:GabeMc, if you're reading this, I don't hold it against you, but please don't do that again! PL290 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patthedog changed your edit- Rock band back to Pop/Rock band. I'll leave it to you to revert or leave it.

He wrote (on Beatles talk)- ...but seriously, if the point was to lose “were” i.e. “and doesn't say they were” then why does the current revision say “were one of the most”? So I say the sentence had more elegance as it was originally - it’s now a little clumsy and ought to be restored. And furthermore, what has happened to the “pop/rock” description? We didn’t have rock bands in England back in 1960, and The Beatles wrote some of the best pop songs ever composed. Well...? --Patthedog (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote back- Patthedog - Read both versions...the "were" is not stressed as much since its the fourteenth word in the article instead of the third word in the article, still is "correct" , plus it just flows better. This article can still be improved; it's not locked up yet and this watchdogging should be reserved for vandalisim. I will improve it where I can. (Vegavairbob (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Patthedog is entitled to do that if he disagrees with my edit. As long as folks are watchlisting articles they're involved with, and are willing to use the talk page when it comes to it, there's no problem. It's all part of WP's rich tapestry. Personally I think your tweak to the lead is okay, as I said. Others (some of whom may have yet to see it, perhaps because they're not around for a few days) may feel differently. The lead of any article is an important part that editors want to be just right (exactly as you do—but we don't always all agree straight away about what "just right" means!). PL290 (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My “piecemeal editing” comment wasn’t aimed at you, PL290. I would have posted here first if I’d realised it was you that had removed the “pop” description - simply out of respect for you and the work you do here. You know my reason for putting it back, and I hope that you’re ok with that.--Patthedog (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely--all fine! PL290 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For creating ((DocumentHistory)). It is a good template, and it's use will grow eventually, with the occurrence of future reviews.  Chickenmonkey  08:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PL290 (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a query regarding the above. What is the current view, as there is some confusion creeping back. I thought it was “The” but I'm not really bothered either way, I just need to know. Thanks.--Patthedog (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was for a while, but then it became "the" in running prose, and "The" when wikilinked, bolded, or italicized or quoted in isolation. You'll find details in the talk history if you're interested, but it went back in compliance with our Manual of Style, which these days thankfully gives specific guidance on the question. PL290 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it again. Once again, "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark and that overrules MoS and that has been the consensus after a lot of painful discussions going back many years. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MoS guideline makes clear that the word should not be capitalized in running prose even when part of the official band name. :That guideline has been accepted in Beatles articles for months now. I don't know why Andrew made those changes today. I have reverted them accordingly in compliance with the MoS. PL290 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus you say? prove it, show us the links to relevant discussion. riffic (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. The consensus was most definitely against PL290, and he was advised (quite specifically) to drop it. --andreasegde (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. See details in my reply to User:LessHeard vanU in the section below. PL290 (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[4]. The case was clear.--andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Instances such as "The Beatles" have a capitalized article. You made several edits (e.g.) contradicting this and it would probably be best if you reverted yourself. Please post on my talk if you would like to respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I was not aware of this change to MOS and I apologize for bothering you. Do you know (although it seems reasonable that the answer is yes) if this affects titles such as the ones that I moved? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again That's embarrassing on my part; I guess those Beatles articles will have to go to WP:RM, as the redirects have histories. Furthermore, a lot of articles need to be moved. Yeesh. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PL 290, thanks for your comment. I left you a query [5] best Mick gold (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support, I shall wear it at all times. A query? Mick gold (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted another query. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion here that you may be interested in. Radiopathy •talk• 16:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to strike through the comment you made here You have no basis to try to say that only one editor opposes your point of view, and you are way out of line using a term like "ethnic cleansing". Radiopathy •talk• 17:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again: you are the one making things personal, with your false accusations, socks and straw men. I wish you would try to work collaboratively. Stop "taking on" editors, which you say you think should be done. It doesn't help. I thought by now you'd learned that, after hounding User:Koavf for so long, and getting blocked multiple times for edit-warring, but it seems even that's not finished yet as far as you're concerned, despite his attempts to work with you. I expressed my displeasure when you did this to me in the past, and I'm sorry to see you doing it again now to DocKino. He is a fine, highly principled editor, given to passionate responses—particularly if others burden him with baseless accusations or twisted prevarication. Please don't take advantage of that for your own ends. You and I have worked together for some time now, and we will continue to do so; it will help us both if you will only stick to discussing what's to be done (which you do very openly and effectively when you choose to). Above all, please stop accusing others of initiating change when you are the one initiating it. If you can at least manage to do that, we might get on better. PL290 (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to retract your personal attack or not? Radiopathy •talk• 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but would you care to actually discuss your proposed rewording of WP:RETAIN? Radiopathy •talk• 14:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here Thanks for your feedback at the FAC nomination for Illinois (album). Since you left critical—and valuable—feedback there, I figured you might be interested in taking a look at the peer review that I have requested. I do not anticipate that you will have much to add (you may have said all you have to say already), but since you showed a willingness to give feedback once, you may wish to again. Either way, thanks for what you've done thus far. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give others a chance to comment at the PR so that you get new ideas. My FAC review was cursory and I don't have specific additional thoughts beyond the general points made, but I've watchlisted the PR anyway and if I get a chance will return to it later to see if there's anything I can add to what others have suggested. PL290 (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Blp talk header. I deleted Template:Blp talkheader, because the parent it was pointing to was deleted. You may need to ask for a WP:DRV or see if there is a logical replacement. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about WT:TFD? or Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To orphan Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I simply do a lot of categorizing, so I see the bottoms of articles a lot and I try to spot bare links. I do not have an (semi-)automated way of doing it, but you could give this a go with WP:AWB: make a list of articles and find any instance of <ref>http or <ref>[http. At least, that will spot articles with that type of bare URL formatting... If you want any help with that, or if I'm just not making sense, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also You asked me if I could please specific which link(s) is bare on the page: ((barelinks)) does not have a parameter for that option and simply put, I'm not interested in doing that. I guess it sounds rude, but I don't mean it to be that way and it is a volunteer encyclopedia and all. Anyway, there aren't that many references, so you should be able to quickly scan it and see if you spot any [1]s or http://site.example/s; that's how I do it in the first place. Again, if you want me to assist you, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address the 'specific and exclusive' scenario you described by adding language to the poll instructions. I proposed it here" Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes/Straw_poll#Proposed_instructions_for_.22specific.2C_exclusive_votes.22 Ocaasi (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I was aware that the link in the referencing wasn't quite working. I kind of hoped that someone (such as yourself maybe!) might improve on it. Or am I asking too much? Brettpam (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got it! Feel free to check once I've got through them all. Cheers. Brettpam (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll understand when I explain to you that I was replying to both of you. For you to then try to tell me that I wasn't is ridiculous, slightly insulting, and suggests that I don't even know what I'm trying to say there. You brought up Lauralex and I was in part referring to that. Moving other people's talk page comments is fine providing that the other editor does not object (as explained in the essay - not guideline - you cited). Since I have clearly objected, stop moving it around. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have removed my information about the Norwegian film noir Death Is a Caress. In my opinion I think it is important to mention Edith Carlmar's debut film Death Is a Caress as an example of a film noir made outside the USA. So I am making a new attempt. Mbakkel2 September 9, 2010 21:22 (CEST)

Hi PL209, I wanted to give you a heads up in case you are not aware that this article is one of many covered under a recent ArbCom ruling. Your edit which removed sourced content [6] could be seen by some as a violation of this [7] ArbCom ruling. I don't want your good intentions to create any unforeseen problems so I'm just giving you the lay of the land. I think the content issue has been resolved and the text has been amended through discussion so that my initial mis-reading of the source, which concerned you, has been corrected. At the same time I wanted to let you know about the ArbCom in case it is relevant to your future work. Thanks for your help keeping things accurate and up to date on Wiki. I look forward to working together in the future. All the best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PL290, thanks for your comments. You ask for an in-text attriubution for idea: "Dylan's "Down in the Flood" repeated these images, adding the implication that the flood is retribution for past sins". I now realise I was quoting from a review of The Basement Tapes which I published in the magazine Let It Rock when the album was released in September 1975. The review is available online. [8] Is it OK to provide a cite to my own review? best Mick gold (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the website, but assuming the magazine counts as a reliable source per WP:V, and you can provide the necessary citation details of the original publication, I can see no reason why your being the critic is a problem here. Music critics are known for all sorts of different interpretations of the same thing, so it's not as if there's an WP:NPOV issue, or readers are in danger of "accepting as fact" something from one voice only; such material is plainly of purely background interest and to only represent the opinion of the speaker. All that's needed is to make clear that the stated interpretation is not Wikipedia's voice, but that of a source. I don't know if the fact of a named critic being a WP contributor has a precedent or itself brings any issues; I wouldn't object, though I can see that some in that position (assuming they're saying nothing particularly contentious) might prefer to steer around the issue by simply mentioning the magazine name. Other WP editors may perhaps feel the critic's name should be mentioned. Ultimately what matters, in my judgement, in this particular case, is to attribute the interpretation to a source, and therefore the source publication is sufficient, and the question of whether the critic is named is not important one way or the other to me. PL290 (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PL! Might you vote on this matter if you would concerning the peak position for the song "Something", please? Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards from -- Jo Atmon ^ello 19:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Many thanks. PL290 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking such a close look at my ancient computer. You made a lot of excellent points, even if I didn't agree with all of them. Malleus Fatuorum 12:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand why you think that a "therefore" in the lede is unencyclopedic (your second bullet point in the FAC). Do you think you could elaborate on that point and I will try to address it. SpinningSpark 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revisit your comments now? SpinningSpark 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently commented on a talk page proposal (proposal 5) to update WP:V, concerning the use of academic and media sources. The proposal has attracted a good amount of support, however a concern has been voiced that implementing the proposal represents a major policy change that would require wider input first. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Current_status; it would be great if you could drop by. --JN466 22:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many inprovements have been made to the article since you last reviewed it. We could use your input at the FAC discussion. — GabeMc (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments at the Roger Waters FAC. — GabeMc (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOS is a guideline, to be used with commonsense and noting that there are exceptions, while not only is WP:CONSENSUS a policy it is also a guiding WP:principle of how things are done within the project; a constituent part of WP:PILLAR. An existing consensus, and especially one that has been debated at length, can only be overturned after participants agree that it should - consensus can change, it is true, but it must be shown that it has changed before the new one can be acted upon.
As noted, I keep a watch on Beatles (yes, I realise I am avoiding the issue...) related articles and have noted the good work you continue to do on them - but in this matter you do not have consensus. Please continue doing your great work on these and other articles, but let the matter of capitalising the t/The go. If this matter continues then I will take both you and Andreasegde to the 3RR board and let them decide if this is edit warring or not (making the same revert over different articles still can count against 3RR if found egregious). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, but you were perhaps not aware that there is now acceptance to comply with that MoS guideline in Beatles articles, as a result of which they've been in that form for some months now. I'm not sure why User:Andreasegde made those edits today that needed reverting. See, for instance, this similar revert by User:Rodhullandemu to restore an article accordingly (note his edit summary). PL290 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus to comply with guidelines for Beatles articles? If it is not within the Beatles article talkpage spaces then it is anomalous to having a third country decide that both the US and the UK will adopt the conch shell as currency; the consensus needs to engage those contributors active and/or interested in editing the article. I have not seen this discussion, or even notice of this discussion, regarding compliancy with MoS guidelines within Beatle article talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for arguments FOR and AGAINST the issue in dispute seems to be lacking, and if anything should be brought up for another round of discussion, hopefully in proper venue with higher visibility (possibly wp:mos-related pages, but I am open to suggestion.) I don't see the harm in extending this discussion. LessHeard vanU, are you an admin? may you help in bringing this discussion to a wider table? thank you riffic (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin, but I have personal involvement in editing the relevant articles and, specifically, arguing the capitalisation issue - and while personally I think capitalising is correct I agree that the argument for non-capitalisation is better founded; however, I recognise that the consensus remains for the capitalisation. Whatever, I am already conflicted in the matter and thus cannot act as an uninvolved admin over the issue. I can point people toward dispute resolution processes, but as noted this issue has already been widely debated previously - there needs to be new grounds for commencing another review of the existing consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree about the new grounds for commencing another review, discussions should always be favored over the alternatives. I'd like to draw from this RfC as a template for where this discussion should be headed, a review and possible update to the current manual of style guidelines concerning these topics in dispute. Basically, if the consensus is solid (as purported), then codify it. Otherwise, it doesn't exist, and may be interpreted as lacking. riffic (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I had, as I mentioned above, formed the opinion that you were a conscientious editor and working to improve Beatles related articles - but my attention has now been drawn to this edit by you. If you again attempt to violate consensus, and especially if you again unilaterally make changes so to make things appear as if the consensus is different to that which it is, I shall block you indefinitely. Please do not mistake me from acting as if you were a common vandal, because with new accounts or vandalism accounts I usually only block indefinitely where it is apparent that there are no grounds to believe that they will edit usefully; I would block you indefinitely because as a regular and otherwise good contributor you know what you did violated the very basis of congenial, consensual and respectful editing that this project promotes and is based upon. This is the only warning you will receive in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your conflicted position, and I respect you for making the facts about that plain in your earlier post above. However, the conclusion you have now reached regarding my conduct is troubling and not supported by the facts:

• Before making any change, I drew attention on the talk page to the fact that there was now a MoS guideline specific to the matter under discussion, and recommended that we comply with it. After ample passage of time, there were no objections to that recommendation, implying acquiescence—not too surprising, since the earlier debates predated specific coverage by the MoS, and complying with Wikipedia guidelines is something editors are generally expected to attempt to do.
• I then posted again to the talk page to that effect, saying I was assuming compliance with the MoS had gained consensus, and updated the talk page header accordingly. All of this is shown in your diff.
• There continued to be no concerns or objections voiced.
• The idea now being put forward by certain editors—that people were somehow not aware of any of this, or that something untoward happened—doesn't really hold water. People will have been aware from watchlists and able to voice any concerns. There were none. (And let's remember, this was three-and-a-half months ago now.)
• User:Rodhullandemu—another admin with keen oversight of Beatles articles—subsequently demonstrated awareness of my recommendation and the new consensus gained, with this reverting edit. That is particularly illuminating because it shows that he, at least, did not question my conduct as is now being done by certain editors months later. It also gave any interested editors who somehow missed the talk page developments another opportunity to become aware of the new consensus, spelled out in his edit summary (Consensus is for lower-case "the", per Talk page), and to resume the discussion if necessary.

I believe I acted properly throughout. I would ask you to retract your accusation about my conduct. PL290 (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to reply to my comments? SpinningSpark 20:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Status_update. I'm not sure whether you oppose proposal 7 as well as proposal 5; if you do, please add your name at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Proposal_7_has_been_opposed_by. --JN466 01:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you recently reviewed another album FAC, I thought you may want to help review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive3. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of Wikipedia:Today's_featured article/requests#December 8? I'm a bit worried about all of the article changes since you were last in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PL, I just want to check that you're okay with the editing that's going on at the above, because I know you put a lot of work into getting it promoted. I hope you'll let us know on the talk page what you're comfortable with. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me; unfortunately I'm bogged down with work and other real-life issues, so unable to follow developments here at the moment.PL290 (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on December 8, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 8, 2010. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon (1940–1980) was an English musician and singer-songwriter who achieved worldwide fame as one of the founding members of The Beatles. Lennon and Paul McCartney formed one of the most successful songwriting partnerships of the 20th century. Born and raised in Liverpool, Lennon's first band, The Quarrymen, evolved into The Beatles in 1960. As the group began to undergo the disintegration that led to their break-up at the end of that decade, Lennon launched a solo career that would span the next, punctuated by critically acclaimed albums, including John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band and Imagine, and iconic songs such as "Give Peace a Chance" and "Imagine". Lennon revealed a rebellious nature and acerbic wit, and he became controversial through his work as a peace activist. He moved to New York City in 1971, where his criticism of the Vietnam War resulted in a lengthy attempt by Richard Nixon's administration to deport him. His songs were adapted as anthems by the anti-war movement. He took a sabbatical from the music business in 1975 to devote time to his family but reemerged in 1980 with a comeback album, Double Fantasy, but was murdered three weeks after its release. (more...)

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a q, which you might be able to address; [9]. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox song release requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>((substituted))</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a vote taking place here and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Paul McCartney article has now been thoroughly copyedited top-to-bottom by numerous editors including User:Lfstevens, who is a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. If you can find the time in your busy schedule, please consider stopping by and taking a look, and hopefully, !voting. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I recently made a change to Elvis Presley that I think I should run by you, being one of the article's main contributors, here. I made the edit before proposing it b/c I thought showing it would get my proposal across better. Dan56 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll here, to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of David Bowie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 11, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 11, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

David Bowie (born 1947) is an English musician. After "Space Oddity" reached the top five of the UK Singles Chart in 1969, he re-emerged during the glam rock era with "Starman" and the album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. In 1975, Bowie achieved his first major American crossover success with the number-one single "Fame" and the album Young Americans. The soul-inspired sound was a radical shift in style that initially alienated many of his UK devotees. He then recorded the critically acclaimed "Berlin Trilogy" of albums with Brian Eno, all of which reached the UK top five. After uneven commercial success in the late 1970s, Bowie had UK number ones in the early 1980s with "Ashes to Ashes", its parent album Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), "Under Pressure" (a collaboration with Queen) and Let's Dance, which yielded several hit singles. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Bowie continued to experiment with musical styles. He has not toured since the 2003–04 Reality Tour and has not performed live since 2006. Throughout his career, he has sold an estimated 140 million albums. In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked him 23rd on their list of the best singers of all time. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles and other great English singers
Thank you for quality articles on great English singers, such as John Lennon and David Bowie, for fighting vandalism, and for your line "Folks, this is becoming a leetle bit silly :). Most Beatles editors are perfectly happy to comply with Wikipedia's Manual of Style on this point." - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 421 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big Star today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Revolver (album) (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Revolver (album) (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Elvis Presley (estimated annual readership: 4,174,000) and John Lennon (estimated annual readership: 2,768,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment--not many editors are on this list once, much less twice--and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Elvis Presley to Featured Article status.

This editor won the Million Award for bringing John Lennon to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers and all best, -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, i would like to request you that don't delete my page, i will fulfill the requirement police guidelines but i will take time. Regards Varadraj Swami

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Beatles - Within You Without You.ogg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the one drop rule, this was, that is a past law that was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1967 Loving vs Virginia and is no longer a law, Thus to say it "is", is inaccurate. This is the reason I corrected and wrote "was". Moreover, Haiti does not a have a high Mulatto population as mentioned. Very inaccurate. That was true in the late 1700's and early 1800's and so was Jamaica. Both countries no longer have a substantial Mulatto population, especially Haiti. Creolehombre2 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles has been scheduled for the above date as today's featured article. I see you've been gone for a while, but in case you come back: I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You're welcome but not obligated to edit the main page text; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DocumentHistory has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:David Bowie - Space Oddity.ogg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]