Wrapped in Grey

Welcome!

Hello, Wrapped in Grey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney

I appreciate your feeling that this cited section (which has stood for quite some time, amid all the other dedicated editors watching this page). A section with extensive citations should never be attempted to be removed from an article without seeking consensus on the article's talk page first. Raise the topic for deletion on the talk page before deleting it. Your edit was not WP:BOLD, which is fine; you are instead failing to attempt reaching consensus for deletion. Please do not remove this content again until consensus has been attained. Thank you! Doc9871 (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - Your edit history and focus is quite interesting... too interesting, in fact. I believe it is quite possible that you are a sock, and I will have a CU performed and checked against you and other editors I suspect. You seem to know far too much about WP in your brief, limited and sporadic editing to be a standard editor, and I am letting you know this now before I seek the "next step". Happy editing! Doc9871 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The very first thing I would do if someone even remotely insinuated I was a sock would be to address it (and rip their head off as a false accusation). No response, huh? I am certain you are a sock with an agenda, and it's just a question of whose sock you are. I'm on the case, don't you worry ;> Doc9871 (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Lennon/McCartney Update

Where you been, man? Haven't seen you editing recently... Well, anyway, you got your wish (for now) about the section I argued for inclusion. It's gone. Another editor finished up where you left off; weird, right? Anyway, happy editing, and here's an inspirational audio snippet to inspire you to fight like a War Eagle! Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Goodbye

I would think you would have included a supporting citation when I challenged your edit to the Hello, Goodbye article. All you did was to add a 'citation needed' tag so you have nothing to support your edit. If there is no verifiable supporting citation added to back up your edit, it will be deleted in two days. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Steelbeard1, to be honest, I'm not sure it needs a citation: `any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation'. Are you challenging it? I.e. do you believe that Capitol photo is not from the Penny Lane session or that the CD photo is not contemporary with Hello, Goodbye? Cheers, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am challenging that claim. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So please tell, what do you believe to be incorrect about it? Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether is it correct or not is not relevant. What IS relevant is if this information is verifiable by a linked verifiable citation. The info you gave is not familiar. That's why verifible citations are required to prove that the info you give is factual. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Wrapped in Grey, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:Wrapped in Grey. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem...

"No need to discuss" isn't the way reverts work, and the "policy" you quoted is not WP policy at all, but a guide; huge difference. Care to comment, please? Doc9871 (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on She's Leaving Home. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Radiopathy •talk• 23:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Cover versions

Well, I am adding them on pages where there isn't a covers section. I feel that it would waste time talking it over, when I'm simply doing a small contribution by adding another entry. And what would you suggest I make it notable? SwisterTwister (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ObLaDiObLaDa-single.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ObLaDiObLaDa-single.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul is dead

Hi, thanks for finding the quote from Life and for pointing out the WP:IPC. I've restored some corrections to the cites which were made before, to provide full info on author, article, etc.Parkwells (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just figure the original authors and pubs should get credit.Parkwells (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:My Child dolls.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:My Child dolls.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer the question

You really should. [1]--andreasegde (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Give My Regards to Broad Street (poster).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Give My Regards to Broad Street (poster).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

John Lennon - 3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Lennon. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bencherlite^Talk 15:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the Lennon talk page and discuss your suggestions before adding them - several editors have reverted your changes which have not been improvements to this Featured Article. As per above - edit warring is not the way to go and will lead to a block. Tvoz/talk 18:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at John Lennon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Please provide some evidence for your accusation.Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No need, have now read 3RR & ROWN.Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Bible

Hello. You recently deleted a sourced paragraph from Revolver (album) with an edit summary stating that The Beatles Bible is not a reliable source. Why is it not reliable? It is just as reliable as any other website not written by an organisation and Wikipedia policy does not disallow the use of such wesbites. It is written using all the most reliable Beatles books as sources, including Leiwsohn's books. Lewisohn's books were written in the 80s, making some of the information is outdated, so The Beatles Bible, which harmonises multiple sources, is more reliable, in my opinon, than the individual books. Just because something is published on the Internet rather than on paper does not automatically make it less reliable. McLerristarr | Mclay1 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The Beatles Bible website clearly states (my emphasis on the first sentence): "The Beatles Bible is a mixture of original research and fact-based information. All writing on this site is original, and should not be reproduced without explicit written permission from the site owner. A contact link is at the foot of every page."[2] A "mixture" of WP:OR and fact-based information would not seem to make it a reliable source for an encylopedia. Any thoughts? Cheers :> Doc talk 23:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming the original research will be things that are clearly opinion, such as whether the song is good or not. I don't see how it's possible for a normal person to actually do original research on The Beatles. Besides, the Wikipedia anti-original research policy is about Wikipedians doing original research, not using sources that use original research. All scientific experiments are original research but Wikipedia would not ban the use of scientific reports as sources. Similarly, Mark Lewisohn's Beatles books are all original research from listening to the actual Beatles session tapes. McLerristarr | Mclay1 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It comes down to "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Lewisohn has that reputation; "Joe" at the BB, does not. Of course, everything is subject to change and such points may be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. Yes, there are a lot of other BB cites in WP—this is bad. If I had to time to address them all, I would. As it is, I address those (mostly) where I know from experience that there is not consensus on the underlying 'fact'. HTH, Wrapped in Grey (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles Bible is basically the most popular books on The Beatles re-written in somebody else's words with commentary thrown in. Obviously I'm not suggesting we include the commentary but the information on the production, release, line-ups, track lists etc. are all reliable as no original research can possibly have been done in that field. As Joe has said himself, Lewisohn's books are outdated and books since then have corrected some of his errors. Lewisohn's personnel line-ups are particularly inaccurate. The benefit of using a constantly updated website over a book is that the website is, well, constantly updated. Lewisohn says in follow up books that his previous books contained mistakes. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Where the BB is based on popular books, it offers WP nothing—WP can cite those books directly. Where it's not, the information needs to identifiably based on sources that WP categorises as 'reliable', facts not opinion; them's the rules! Obviously, cite later, corrected Lewisohn books in preference to earlier ones. On a more general note, line-up details etc. are really not that important in the grand scheme of things; dwelling on them too much tends towards WP:FANCRUFT. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I still think deleting information sourced with The Beatles Bible is too extreme. It should just be a temporary source till it can be verified by a respected book.

But that brings up another point: Bob Spitz's book on The Beatles is cited a number of times in Wikipedia but that book is FULL of mistakes, elementary ones too. Many are listed here. Should that book be boycotted as a reliable source? McLerristarr | Mclay1 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotta interject with two important points: 1)WP:WAX (beacuse it exists elsewhere on WP doesn't necessarily make it correct), and 2) the question of reliability of both the sources listed here. Sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are preferred over those without, and this broadly worded phrasing leaves a lot of room for identifying what is or isn't a reliable source - and consensus among reliable sources pertaining to factual accuracy is to be considered (esp. in the second case). These are probably questions for WP:RSN, really, because both sources may be found to be ultimately reliable or unreliable. I don't know much of the history of these sources, but I think it should probably be brought up at that noticeboard for more opinions. Cheers :> Doc talk 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Another 3RR warning on John Lennon

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Lennon. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
It appears that you have not understood the rationale behind the previous block you received - you do not reverse a revert made in good faith, and especially one with a good rationale noting the proper application of policy. Per WP:BRD you made a WP:BOLD edit which was WP:Reverted with appropriate rationale, and now it is your responsibility to WP:Discuss the insertion of the content content and gain consensus.
In regard to your edits, you need to show why this instance of activism is particularly notable and may be used as an example of Lennon's (and Yoko Ono's) political and social activities. As a Lennon fan, and previously a consistent contributor to this article, I must say that I was not familiar with the Hanratty incidents, as opposed to sending roses to striking ship builders, or sending an acorn to all the world leaders, as well as the more well known "bed in" 's. You will need to indicate why these examples, which I would suggest have a greater variety of references available as sources, should be disregarded for the one you prefer.
I trust that you will self revert your inappropriate action, and start the necessary talkpage discussion. If there are any other matters of WP policy or guideline you are unfamiliar with, please do not hesitate to contact me - it is part of the admin remit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless that the onus is on you to formulate a discussion, and in view of my doubts that you are inclined to do so in your individual approach to policy compliance, I would advise you that I have initiated a discussion at the John Lennon talk page regarding the appropriateness of the Hanratty example of Lennon's political and social activism. I would also draw your attention to the fact that I have suggested that you be required to discuss any further additions of content prior to being permitted to do so. You may wish to comment upon that also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

“according to the reverts you have made”. Just for the record, the above notice was placed here after a single revert (and with no other associated reverts, even outside the 24-hour period). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternate

Per WP:VNE, where applicable, 'alternative' is preferred. I've noticed the non-preferred use when referring to album and single covers—'Alternate Covers'—especially in infoboxes. Is this something your bot could help with? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes it could. I'll start it doing the changes now. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Songs Lennon & McCartney Gave Away

I have misplaced the link I was going to add. I will search again for it. The original LP cover was different too. Be good to get a scan of it. Davidpatrick (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jude cover challenge

That's a bit unusual. Would you mind explaining what your concern is on the talk page - there is a lot at WP:V? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Have added talk page entry. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Will see what we can find. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Please Me Track listing

I was just curious as to why you reverted my edit of turning the track listing of Please Please Me into the table format? I was simply trying to be consistant with the pages of all the other albums in The Beatles core catalogue. Ste900R (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Arguably, many of the other albums should also use the simpler, list format. Choice of list or table format depends on the complexity of the information presented and is made on a case-by-case basis, per album, not per band. There is no requirement to list lead-vocalists in a track list; whether to or not is determined by 'following the sources' of the particular article. HTH. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles

So who won? Since you brought the subject up I am assuming you're going to dash in and count the votes and declare a winner. —Prhartcom (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No consensus. Previous consensus prevails. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, sure, I was just addressing our host (since we're on their page). —Prhartcom (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Request

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disruption at The Beatles article and talkpage and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case regarding The Beatles

Hi Wrapped in Grey, this is just a friendly notification to inform you that the Arbitration Commitee has declined to hear the case regarding The Beatles to which you were a party. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"The" versus "the Beatles"

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Beatles/Years Active

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper straw poll

Unfortunately, there is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated.--andreasegde (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

Hello Wrapped in Grey; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll 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, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A Tesla Roadster for you!

	A Tesla Roadster for you!
	Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Batman222june1970.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Batman222june1970.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 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) 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)