User talk:JG66/Talk archive/2020

595:

Noticeboard. I realise this album may not be on your playlist but I am hoping for common sense. I noticed that user: 197.87.101.28 had added nonsense and had also had it removed by an Editor, User: isaacsorry a '30 million copies' claim. It was removed once again, this time by User: 88marcus. It was put back in again!! And then I stepped in and supported User:88Marcus by removing it myself and giving reason on the talk page for this nonsense. We really need some senior level intrusion here, and if you can read the dialogue you will see what I mean. The citations are simply statements of "30 million sales" there is nothing to back it up and certainly nothing on any 'best selling album of all-time lists'. Your experience and help would be much appreciated as the previous Arbitrator has now stepped out. Here is the link

3367:: I'm sorry you've taken offence at the comment, but it seemed entirely apt, to be honest. I'd reverted your edit with an explanation, and you went and added pretty much the same information again. Leads do not have to be so detailed. More importantly, numerous editors have approached you on your talk page about the way you're rewriting or expanding article leads, and your changes have been reverted by other editors (ie, apart from those on your talk page) in articles I watch. It doesn't seem that you're interested in taking this feedback on board – so that's where a comment like "You're just not all there, are you" comes from. 2191:

your articles (at least from memory), even though there are so many very good ones. I especially enjoyed all the extra details in it, including the detail about how George got the Hells Angels to leave, and the details about John's growing enthusiasm for the song. If you were to want to cast aside your wariness and give FAC a new chance with fresh eyes, you would definitely have my support on this article! What do you say, would you have any interest at all in tentatively dipping your toes in the FAC waters with this fantastic article?! I think it could be a fabulous hit!

1530:(I found out accidentally). The nominator, who had nothing to do with the article, even won a prize! I didn't want any prize and turned down the later offer of a T-shirt or something; I just found the process incredible. The article became an FA in 2006, was on the front page in 2007... and in 2009, it was decided it's not good enough to be an FA any more. Hero to zero in 3 years. Quite infuriating, and it does make one wonder whether it's worth the time and effort to go through FAC. Meanwhile, the artists concerned have written 777:, etc. Again, it's only a feeling on my part, and I've yet to re-read the article in any depth anyway. I guess it's about the contradictory picture one gets from music journalists writing a review or a feature on an album decades later vs how music historians, who (one hopes) aren't out to laud any work in particular, locate that album in a more sobre analysis. Just thought I'd flag it with you now – could be I'm worrying about nothing. Certainly don't want to take anything away from the result nor your gesture here! 1646:(and I thought I knew most things there are know about the Beatles). Some of the material I read made me quite emotional (I miss George; I share many of his passions besides loving his music - Bob Dylan, Asia, Formula 1... In fact, I was in the Far East when he died; I was in Kuala Lumpur, and the little "Reggae Bar" I hung out in played his live album as a tribute. It was nice to be amongst music lovers on that sad day). If these articles are fair indicators, and I believe they are, your work is 2071:, mighty good to hear from you, and yes, it's been a while! All good here, thanks, although for a few years now I've shied away from GA nominations. Never intended to quit the habit entirely, and I keep meaning to reverse the trend (which is possibly a regular theme of discussions on this talk page over the last year or two). Old Brown Shoe's definitely one of about 20 I expanded then put on the back burner. I'll get on to it now; would be great if you end up grabbing the review. 3621: 1999: 3844: 3958: 713: 1440:

I don't really see the point: the Beatles are so well known, and I imagine their articles get plenty of traffic without the need for signposting on Knowledge's main page. (Also, over my first couple of years here, 2012–14, I saw Beatles articles making FA and I wasn't too impressed with the nominating editor – the process became all about them, with subject and content taking second place. So I wasn't too impressed with FAC either, as a result.)

317:

the most adventurous Stone, the one first embraced by the London arts scene and the one who epitomised Swinging London fashion and image, just as he was the one with the New York arty connections and the closest to Dylan and the Beatles. Pallenberg furthers this, because they become Europe's Golden Couple (Salewicz's phrase, I think). Added to this point, the Stones have ended 1965 with enormous commercial success for their singles, attracting

2584: 2386: 1718:... And JL with the likes of "Tomorrow Never Knows", "I Am the Walrus", "Revolution 9", too ... Just astonishing; I'm regularly floored by that realisation. I can safely say I'm far more of a curious learner, about the Beatles' artistry and cultural impact, and about the 1960s generally, than I am a fan of the Beatles. Which is probably just as well, given that this is not a fan site(!). Man, I could go on for days about this ... 2243:"Here Comes the Sun", let me know when you get to them.) I remember many years ago I told you I was planning to spruce up "If Not For You" (which I never did) and you mentioned at the time you might have some further details to add to the Harrison section. Maybe at some point we can try to collaborate on it and bring it to GA together. Anyway, I'm really glad you're back to working on GAs. It's a pleasure to see the work you do. 2800:

that I tried. (BTW, I see no utility in going the Talk page route, as I know that I'll be stonewalled by johnny-come-lately Floyd aficionados, with the "not proper prog" chip on their shoulder, and I don't have the time to get embroiled in a no-win discussion. Besides, I'd rather others see my fate in the immutable revision history, so this POV might gain some traction in future.) Best wishes and no hard feelings either way.

2725:, I know you're a Master Editor here so know what you're talking about. So instead of making this its own section as I did the first time, I made it a separate paragraph. I did this mostly because I was expecting the song being used as a TV theme song to stand out, but didn't notice it in the article. At first, I thought it wasn't even in there and was going to add it. If I'm doing something wrong here, let me know! 945:, not to mention the trillions that had existed before -- which may explain why those greatest albums lists usually have hundreds listed, sometimes a thousand. Give this context -- the infinite amount of albums in record music's history, and the select hundreds that have consistently appeared on professionally curated lists, and the supporting text from expert sources -- I believe the claim stands. 208:, I like what you've done at Musical style, pulling those various comments together. From working on Beatles articles for so long (where there is no end of commentary on each song), I guess I'm used to seeing each track given a dedicated paragraph separate from an overview of the LP's styles and lyrical themes. I'm finding, as I'm sure you are too, plenty of commentary on all the 1209:, I don't have a copy of it, I'm afraid. I think I'm right in saying that Acclaimed Music ignores the rankings completely, for what it's worth (by that I mean, we've never been able to establish Acclaimed as a reliable source here, despite its continued appearance in GAs and FAs). I have read that the respondents included critics – it's in one of the sources cited at the 2282:

it wasn't a priority for you, as some might think it was one of his more "teenybopper-ish" songs. Anyway, cool, glad to see you're working on it. I think I'll probably be able to get to "IMM" quite soon, but would just like to make a little more progress on my own project. I'm looking forward to seeing your addition to "If Not For You" when you find the info. Talk soon!

54:. Ah, I did wonder whether that was addressed to me ...! It's a very kind offer, and I enjoyed working on the article with you on and off last year. Not sure I'm up for full nom commitment (same reason I've not nominated anything for a couple of years now), but I know you'll do a great job on the article anyway. Perhaps your activity there will pique my interest. 3916:, hi there. May well drop by the talk page as you suggest, but it seemed to me the issue was settled there, and the article carries a dmy dates tag, after all. Is there a problem with my changes? While there's US finance in the production, the show couldn't be more Brit English, which would normally suggests dmy, along with British English style, of course. 1444:

separate navbox for people associated with the Beatles until a few years ago. That was deleted. But I agree with you – of course the likes of Epstein (especially Epstein), Aspinall, Evans, Martin, etc. should be included in the band's main navbox. Derek Taylor and Peter Brown also, I should think. I'll add my support at the template talk page.

66:

her presence made Jagger view his relationship with Shrimpton as staid and spent – all of which comes out in the album's music and lyrics, of course. Perhaps that's oversimplifying the situation and/or a case of biographers looking for something significant in retrospect and milking it for all its worth, but I'm sure you get the drift.

3202:" because the timbre of the vocal is too light, and the voice is too high. While Paul may have crossed the barrier between tenor and baritone, I still find it obvious that his timbre lies within the tenor range, and even if he did disguise his vocal as a baritone's vocal, that's because he had a very impressive range. ― 517:“Redacting” info and redact all angry, sardonic, “shouty” or negative posts. I already changed some. I simply request that you do the same and redact that comment about “blathering” or any similarly negative posts. Please simply reply that you’ll also redact any negative posts. I won’t contact you after that. Thanks. 3095:, they're not old discussions. At least the one I filed wasn't – it's three days old and no one's even addressed it. Why is this, and why should it be archived as if it has been addressed? Over the last year or two, I've increasingly found the whole trust-the-admins route a waste of time, and this just proves it. 3311:"Lady Madonna" and "Back in the U.S.S.R." because the timbre is still quite warm and doesn't really sound like a baritone, it sounds much more like a tenor imitating a baritone. I find the way Paul hits the high notes in "Lady Madonna" to be too natural and effortless than if Ringo were to try to reach them. ― 3815:

I probably wouldn't remember stuff either. Nonetheless, I'm enjoying expanding all his articles; honestly much needed and I'm surprised it's not happened sooner. Not sure if I plan to do his entire discography, but a good portion of it. Anyways, good to catch up. Looking forward to seeing your future

3771:

All in all, it makes working on McCartney solo articles a bit exhausting and demoralising. Not just because the artist's often presented in an unflattering light as he's making or promoting the album (eg, his ignoring advice from others about the album, not letting musicians or band members genuinely

3375:

you doing now?" with almost every lead-related edit I see you make. As I've said to you before, your changes often show little consideration for what's already in the lead (eg, you'll repeat info and links), and/or for how an issue is covered in the main body. And it's the latter that determines what

3296:

Yeah, both George and John sang a lot of their Beatles songs in the low tenor/high baritone range, which is one of the numerous things that initially made it difficult for me to distinguish them. Starting from the late 60's George opted for a higher register than the one that he used in the early and

2759:

article. It says the song wasn't used on the DVD, except for the pilot, due to high licensing fees for the Beatle's song. The problem is that article doesn't identify its source (and the source below it is out of date). I did find individual reviews of the DVD from customers who talked about the song

2213:

The Hells Angels thing is hilarious. As with most things Harrison, there's always a backstory – because he invited them to stop by Apple when he was in San Francisco seeking out the Krishnas (in August 1967, I guess), not thinking for a minute they ever would. So while he's away in California and New

1578:

issue above). No, it's not canvassing – there's no RfC underway after all. It was probably not helpful of me to add my opinion of the editor; it wasn't a case of getting personal for the sake of getting personal, it was to say that almost all editors add something constructive to the project, but one

1545:

of a front page appearance. I found some personal satisfaction from achieving FAs, and it is a great boon to a WikiProject to get an article promoted, but if you think it's not worth the bother and/or disagree with elements of the process I respect that and have sympathy for the view. Looking at some

1005:

As I said, it does very much depend on how one defines "most acclaimed" and essentially that means at what 'number' being most acclaimed stops at. For me, it's in the range 10-50. I take your point that there have hundreds of thousands of albums, and can see how you would conclude that an album which

244:

right now, but generally speaking – it is possible to read mention of a journalist having said or written something as an event that took place side by side with the description of the album's creation. If a year is inserted ("Writing in 2002, Ian MacDonald said ..."), then no problem, obviously. But

65:

from Jagger's. I'd always intended to cover that under Background; think I might have made mention of it in a comment accompanying one of my edits. The point that a couple of biographers make is that Pallenberg gave Jones the confidence to experiment musically and a sense of sophisticated cool, while

4282:

says "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." The Dutch Top 40 and Single Top 100 cats are subcats of the number-one singles in

3893:

Hi - I notice you have made some changes to the date format in one of the season articles for this series. The format that is appropriate for this series is currently being discussed on the talk page of the main series article, and it would be more constructive if you would contribute your views to

3779:

article and how whitewashed and airbrushed his history has become in Knowledge's presentation. There's very little, nothing in some cases, on less glorious aspects or events that receive no end of coverage in reliable sources and have also received plenty of comment from McCartney himself. Of course

3564:

I'm pleased you think my change was an improvement. I thought I might be reverted given that it's a Good Article and, looking back at the edit history for September, I see that this comment was already made by a user called User:Isaacsorry who was criticised by another user for making changes to the

3504:

But in the meantime it is general knowledge that (at least) 27 songs have been recorded at Georges's house, as in November 2018 twenty-seven original Esher demos were released in high-quality as part of the deluxe 50th Anniversary reissue of The Beatles, taken from Harrison's original 4-track master

2799:

Sorry, but, in my opinion, the single genre assignation of Progressive Rock to Dark Side is a misrepresentation of this seminal album, bugging me for a few months now, and I feel that I must make a stand here. Happy to accept the consequences, but at least others reviewing the page history will see

2300:

No, I'd not done anything on "I Need You", nor "Don't Bother Me" and "Taxman" (as far as I know), before now. I think I just needed to de-yogi-fy somewhat after "I Me Mine"; I'm not one for sentimental love songs, as a rule, but the (for once) straightforward, boy-loves-girl theme was kinda welcome!

2190:

Hi JG, great work on OBS. I left one more comment recommending you merge footnotes 4 and 5. Hey, I know in the past you haven't had good experiences on the FAC page—and that you get asked about this all the time—but I've got to say I really think OBS is a wonderful article, maybe my favourite of all

1753:

Not feeling too well atm, so will end this message here: I was born in the early 70s, so I didn't live through the group's existence (and hence my concurrent interest in the music of the late 80s/early 90s)... the point I'm trying to get to is that besides the books/magazines/records, the unofficial

1713:

What holds my interest here is that I'm learning so much as I write, about things way beyond your typical pop song. Him and John Lennon: of course they got didactic and preachy at times, but I'm constantly in awe of how they strived for new dimensions and not in a calculated way – just as a means of

1439:

and thanks for your words of encouragement. I must get back on the GA trail – there should be at least 20 articles I've got up to standard over the last couple of years but just haven't summoned the final 2 per cent of effort to polish up for nomination. I've never gone down the FAC route, actually.

803:

I haven't read the article in full, but the lead statement "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums" makes me slightly uneasy. It all depends how you define "most acclaimed". The article says the album placed 109 in the Rolling Stone

354:

My life is taking a turn for uncertainty now. I may be homeless for some time, on the road, and unlikely to access a computer to continue working on this in the foreseeable future. I am leaving it up to you to continue the nomination or remove the nomination template and leave it for someone else or

3270:

I think with George vs John, there's definitely an overlap in the mid '60s. Songs like "Think for Yourself" and "I Want to Tell You" could easily be sung by Lennon. But the idea that many people at the time thought "Lady Madonna" and "Back in the U.S.S.R." were sung by Ringo I really do understand.

3193:

But I did find some key differences, such as George having a lighter and warmer timbre, and a higher tessitura, a smoother vocal, and a thicker accent. And John having a more raspy vocal and a not as thick but still thick accent. I still don't understand how people can think that Ringo sang lead on

2998:

series, HoR often reproduce/d an MM or NME review or article in edited form, to fit the page, so the magic words "most inventive piece of song-writing" might not have made the cut. (Kinda unlikely perhaps, since it's obviously a major statement about the album, but I'm just thinking aloud ...) Only

2866:

Thanks, I really appreciate your help and advice. To be honest, this has all been a bit stressful, and I'm not sure that I have the energy or diplomatic skills to take on a cohort of prog wannabes, with axes to grind on this obviously sensitive subject, but will try to follow-up your opening salvo

2539:

There were a couple of points I'd thought about including, inspired by your taking the discussion towards the listener and consumer's perspective in the late '60s/1970s, actually. Would want to ensure that the sources approach the points from an album era perspective (rather than us editors getting

2281:

I see you're working on "I Need You". When I listed "Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Here Comes the Sun" above, I almost also included "I Need You" (and maybe "Taxman", "You Like Me Too Much", "Don't Bother Me") in the list, but I saw no work had been done at that time on "I Need You" and I guessed maybe

2242:

Hey man, I'm honoured to be up there with your top interactions on Knowledge. I've enjoyed our interactions for sure too. I see you've been working on "I Me Mine". Who knows, maybe I can try to review that too; let me know when you're done and I can see where I'm at. (Also "Guitar Gently Weeps" and

2226:

Ah, the FA thing ... I hear what you say and, again, I really do appreciate your encouragement. Right now, it's just great to be back among the GA nominators (after maybe three years away), and I hope to get a few more nominated soon. It's been fabulous working with you again; I always consider our

1855:

Don't worry; the article is nowhere near going to any quality review process, and if it does I'll call in some copy-editing help beforehand. I am aware, for instance, that the "Themes" section needs a thorough makeover, but there's a book to be read in the meantime which was published since we lost

1478:

discourage editors from adding peripheral characters. The other option of course is simply to monitor the template and undo any dubious additions. I'm afraid I can devote no more time to it, as I have KLF-articles and real-life business to attend to. This ought to be the last communication from me,

1443:

Talking about editors I don't like – and there really are only a very few over my entire time editing here(!) – I wouldn't pay any attention to what ILIL thinks. I've never found he possesses the competency to support his position on anything, nor the ability to work with other editors. There was a

370:

Oh boy, I'm very sorry to hear that. I'll do my best with the nomination, but if the review comes too soon or is too taxing, I may just have to throw it back. I'm much more concerned on the human front: I sincerely hope things work out for you, and soon. If that means you're back here on Knowledge,

316:

One thing I still hope to address is the dynamics between Jones, Jagger, Richards and Oldham, outside of the issue regarding female companions. Part of this appears under Writing & recording already, but I'm thinking it's a point for the Background section. It relates to the idea that Jones was

248:

Put another way, when discussing particulars of a song or album, we'd still say the vocalist sings (even though they sang it decades ago, and may be dead now), so in the same way, I think each critic, musicologist and other commentator says/states/writes/considers. I'll leave the decision with you,

165:

Nice one. Just skimmed through the article – it looks really good. Sections are long and the quotes and commentary come thick and fast, but that's fine; far as I can see, all the commentators' opinions and interpretation add something – it's all good info and combines to give a great picture of the

114:

Blimey, that was quick work with the GA nom ... I was thinking of stopping by and perhaps adding something on the Anita–Chrissie situation, perhaps from the Bockris, Norman or Charone bios. I mean, maybe you've nailed it (I haven't looked yet) – in which case, fine. But would it be a problem to you

3811:

Thin White Duke period or some events that apparently happened in the mid-late 1980s. I have also found that he sometimes gives conflicting statements regarding his music as well, especially during his cocaine period, but to be fair if I was so high to the point where I couldn't remember recording

3595:

On the Isaacsorry front, I don't know about at the Who, but he was making a point of reworking lead sections, often in FAs and GAs, and not always constructively. (You'll see an exchange further up the page here, and last I saw, there was plenty more from other editors on his talk page.) So it was

3500:

It may be the case that when Kenneth Womack ("the source") wrote his acclaimed book "The Beatles Encyclopedia: Everything Fab Four" he was aware of only 23 songs recorded during the Kinfauns/Esher sessions in May 1968, as most of the bootlegs circulating over the years carried 23 (or less) songs.

3370:

It's one thing being sensitive to derogatory comments made about you based on your edits, but you could always be sensitive and respectful to editors (I'm thinking up to 10 of them/us by now) who have taken issue with the way you arrive at articles, often GAs and FAs, and add to the lead sections.

2740:

Well, there's definitely something in either the Manual of Style or guidelines to writing Knowledge articles that says not to set just one or two sentences as a standalone section/subsection, and I'm pretty sure there's similar advice regarding paragraph length ... Just because a cover version has

1540:

Being an FA doesn't guarantee a front page appearance (one of our FAs was proposed for a front page appearance after my semi-retirement, and was turned down because it contains a very rude word in the title); FA denotes the article as peer-reviewed, professional quality and one of Knowledge's best

1518:

My main writing partner left disillusioned. I forget why. but it might have been because album cover scans were being removed zealously, or because of some of the other irritating things which happen here. I semi-retired in early 2008 for similar reasons and because I got a new time-consuming job,

1065:

The lead's final sentence currently states that it's "among the most acclaimed records in history, consistently ranking on critics' lists of the greatest albums". I suggest that rather than allowing a subjective viewpoint (any of ours) to dictate what counts as being "among the most acclaimed", we

231:

My recent change to tense for introducing Jagger's lyric to Out of Time got me thinking: I've probably been introducing inconsistency regarding commentators' views, in that I see them as living on in the present (just as Jagger "sings", because the work lives on; whereas if we're talking about the

3810:

Yeah I understand what you mean. I'll always love Paul but over the years I have learned that he hasn't always been the greatest person, especially in regards to quoting history. Regardless I'll always love him. But yeah, Bowie definitely wasn't the greatest person at times, especially during his

2051:

Hi JG, how've you been? It's been a long time. I hope you're well! I was listening to "Old Brown Shoe" this morning, which with "Ballad of John and Yoko" are up there in the top group of my favourite Beatles' tunes, and then just now I was reading the wiki article for "OBS". It looks like it's in

1697:

But George H. generally ... My happiest times here on Knowledge have been when working on Harrison song articles, often for songs that received little in the way of critical acclaim at the time but have such an interesting (imo) story behind them, or include a couple of Pythonesque jokes, or have

594:

Dear JG66 I have just reached out to User:Martinevans123 because I received help from both of you in the past. This time I came to the support of two other Editors and have now become embroiled!! If you have time and can be bothered I really would like your help on an ongoing Dispute resolution

516:

Apologies for posting on your page, I don’t see any other way to respond to messages. I responded on that “Ob-La-Di ...” Talk page but have no clue if that was read. Your message about no further talk is fine. Now that I know the appropriate forum I‘ll post it there. This weekend I’ll read that

3758:

straight afterwards. For me, the problem when working on McCartney articles, and to some extent on McCartney/Beatles song articles, is that he was and is such a PR machine that you're forever coming across major inconsistencies between what he said and did way back when, on one hand, and what he

3310:

I can sort of get why some people would think that Ringo sang lead on "Lady Madonna" and "Back in the U.S.S.R." because I do feel that if Ringo's voice was higher, he'd probably sound more like Paul. But I still think that one would have to be quite inexperienced to think that Ringo sang lead on

2480:

Sorry to say (because I appreciate you've done the work already), I'm not entirely sure he merits an article here. Judging by the list of references at least, the only truly independent 3rd party source that identifies him as being in any way significant is Dai Griffiths. Even then, the author's

2329:

Hello, there used to be a page called Collaborations between ex-Beatles which has been changed to the clunky "Collaborations involving multiple ex-Beatles" with some equally clunky explanation. The editor then interrupted the grey block of death to bring John and George back from the dead. I've

1616:

Actually I didn't mean to imply that Apple scruffs should not be on the template (despite calling it "fluff" :)). I find that story rather cute, and George was sufficiently moved by their dedication to write a song about them. They're part of the Beatles and Apple story. I was merely juxtaposing

1549:

The big change I have observed since my return is with regards to GAs. I remember the GA process as being a step up from B class, and it was fun to participate in and very casual. Now it seems to be FA-minus, and there's a massive queue for reviews. If I had a very high quality article ready for

4113:

Anyway, of course the answer's yes. But look, I'm feeling well lazy right now, been up all night doing my Keef Richards impersonations, but at the same time, I'm thinking if I don't act on this straight away, I probably never will. At least two of the three non-free pieces (ie, adding the Paul

1891: 3282:– there were always a few songs I wasn't sure about. I bet my older brother a million quid that McCartney sang "Hey Jude" (he kept insisting it was Lennon). Think it's safe to say that all the reliable sources generally support my view there. Which reminds me – he still hasn't paid up yet ... 1260:

and VH1. (That is, refers to the lists throughout her book when discussing the most "canonical" rock albums, and then lists the top albums in each poll in one of the book's appendixes – if you're able to get much of a preview in the google books link.) So I support it, although that's on the

212:

tracks – in Davis, Guesdon & Margotin, Malvinni, Perone, Norman – but at the same time, there are some obvious filler tracks so we can probably live without the song-by-song rundown for GA. Just thought I'd mention it; not sure if that applies for FA also – you'd know far better than me.

3763:

he said and did. Not only that but also between his version of events and the recollections of others who were involved. I don't know if that makes any sense to you: it comes down to what some sources identify as his ambitious and populist stance, and his moulding past events to suit a more

2267:: he'd recorded it with his guitar facing right into the mic, which made his vocal almost inaudible, so George had to join the dots when it came to some of the song's words. I thought that story was so typical Dylan! (Equally typical is that now I can't remember which book I read it in ...) 2222:

crew have arrived to set up a London temple and are seeking out George for assistance. The Krishnas and the Angels get on fine, but Aspinall and all the Apple staffers, and John and Yoko, are petrified. It's typical 1960s zaniness, and the Beatles, especially Lennon and Harrison with their

1597:

Missed something: I think the inclusion of Apple scruffs is fine, and more is needed in that article to support the scruffs' notability. Can't for the life of me work out what The Scotch of St. James is doing in the template. More deserving (although I'm not suggesting we add it) would be

3541:

too), Lennon had taped four others at his home, and these songs were then transferred to Harrison's tapes when the band got together at Kinfauns. So the Esher demos end up totalling 27 songs, yes, but demos for only 23 were made there. I'll revisit the text to clarify the point perhaps.

3930:

Certainly there's a consensus emerging, but the talk is ongoing. I agree with you, and the series itself is using DMY format on screen, but you will see from the discussion that there are a couple of editors of a different view. Adding your views to the talk page would be appropriate.

1183:

article) considered a reliable source for ratings? (it appears to be an opinion poll, but one put together by a well-known and respected music journalist). If it is considered reliable and if either of you have a copy of it, would you mind having a look and telling me if The KLF's

898:. I appreciate that every "best" list carries a major surprise or two, often on the whim of the publication's editor and to make a statement. But to me, that was a notable (and puzzling) omission, because the book's contributors were top-flight critics from the UK, US and Germany. 2684:

Just a suggestion... Would it not be easier all round to raise questions about the content, or to highlight major changes you are making (with reasons), on the article talk page, rather than in edit summaries? That way, more of us may be able to contribute constructively.

279:

I like your recent revisions, too. I would suggest, however, that the note about "Under My Thumb" (nb3) be incorporated into the text, somewhere in the third paragraph about Jones' role in shaping the album's tone. It seems like a significant item to the writing and recording.

1698:

attracted a lot of thoughtful commentary from biographers and musicologists. You mention being in KL when he died; I remember, much more recently, going to Hawaii and immediately gaining a better understanding of him and his songs. It made writing articles for the likes of "

1579:

or two do not and have a reputation for being disruptive and/or inconsiderate. However you choose to go about it, I'm confident you'll find the majority of editors agreeing that Brian Epstein and George Martin, and possibly those others, should be included in the template.

2700:

Sure thing. I was trying to get myself to a level of knowledge and understanding with the article, first, and then go to the talk page with something approaching a cohesive argument. No chance of the latter (just confusion on my part) ... Will post there soon. Cheers,

1511:. It was really just a 2-man project, plus a 3rd editor who'd laid the foundations on many articles and set up a transcription library website which proved invaluable for research. We achieved approximately 19 GAs and 4 FAs (5 if one includes the closely related band 3271:

From reading about those songs, it was a case of McCartney doing an "Elvis impersonation", and listeners hadn't heard that before. They'd heard McCartney singing rock 'n' roll of course, but doing so sincerely and unselfconsciously, whereas in 1968 he appeared to be

1066:

substitute with the number 150 all-time ranking at Acclaimed Music, and also change "consistently" to "frequently", because no source supports the claim that it consistently appears on these lists. In fact – and this was what got me looking in books like Wyn Jones'

808:. To me, "among the most acclaimed records in history" would mean it was consistently ranked in the top 10 or at my most generous, the top 50. 150 really doesn't cut it. I'd expect an album which is "among the most acclaimed" to be discussed in the same breath as 3496:

Regarding my edit to "Circles (George Harrison song)": you have undone my revision 976876542, because (quote) "that's not what the source says (and Knowledge's only interested in reporting what reliable sources say, not our individual observations)" (unquote).

1416:

Seems my memory is playing tricks on me as you've only been around since 2012? That's odd. I must have seen your name in Beatle related places so frequently in recent times that I misremembered it as you being around when Lar and I set up the project in 2006 :/

2492:

This reminds me of Richard Riegel, a critic I've long thought about writing an article about. (And irony of ironies, he posts on that page at rockcritics.com you link to above.) Like Hull, Riegel was a protégé of another influential journalist – in this case,

4118:

article, which looks like it could be v useful) are so long – at least to someone like me who's more used to '60s album articles and contemp reviews that say very little. Sooo, as soon as you reply to this, I'll paste something substantial at your talk page,

1909:

The quantity and - more importantly - quality of the articles you have written about the Beatles and related topics and taken to GA status is outstanding. Reading some of them almost moved me to tears. Thank you for your hard work and long may it continue.

1882:

Looking through your talk page archives, you do not appear to have received this award - probably because most editors including myself were not aware of its existence :). If in fact you have been awarded it before, consider it a double honour well-earned.

2821:

AstralCiaran, one of the main tricks to getting something like that changed on Knowledge is providing a recognized, reliable source that says so. Otherwise, editors like you (and me, and, frankly, anybody) can run into the problem of not getting our edits

1473:

as I agree with the suggestion; I had merely overlooked them. I'm not going to fight any reversion, however. Perhaps it might be worth splitting 'people' into "Management" and "Production" subsections somewhat like the 2007 version of the template, which

1829:

the quote markers, but there's no point trying to argue against the guardians of the MOS, particularly with an argument as weak as "but I like it!" :) It also looks like the merits of the template and the style guidelines have been discussed to death at

223:

appropriate. Anyway, with the Stones' releases up to late '67, there's the issue that there is no "correct" version of an album; the US configurations were not swept away by international standardisation for CD, and American writers still appear to view

3190:'s vocals. But even when I realised that George did sing lead on some tracks, I found his voice to be very difficult to distinguish from John's. When John sang I usually knew it was him, but when George sang I often thought it was John singing as well. 568:

I’m aware of Wiki’s “3rd party source” policy but I became very frustrated because if the copyright isn’t a legitimate 3rd party source, then I don’t know what is. But I won’t get into that here. I’m just letting you know that no offense was intended.

3124:, sorry, I posted at Talk:AN/I before seeing that you'd replied. Perhaps discussion should continue there, I don't know – I do appreciate you offering to help, and thank you. It's the absence of that reaching out that I've been finding so frustrating. 1052:

would be useful; it summarises critical opinion for many of the genre's major works rather than simply reflecting the author's opinion (as books by, say, James Perone do). In fact, I found nothing there, and from searching the preview, it seems

1714:

self-expression. I mean, I've still not recovered from fully appreciating (perhaps in about 2015) just how bold it was for Harrison to create songs like "Love You To" and "Within You Without You": in his early twenties, for a pop record, for a

2890:." Unfortunately, that Guardian blog opinion piece is not the most reliable source that Pink Floyd were not prog, as it makes the bizarre assertion that Marillion were not inspired by Pink Floyd. That blows a bit of a hole in his credibility. 2210:. Wow, thanks – as if it's not enough that the article's now a GA, your praise is very generous. Sorry, I got a bit distracted towards the end by something at Talk:John Lennon; I'll check the GA review page and fix that last point you mention. 1546:

of the FACs and FARs, I too am somewhat reluctant/hesitant to get involved as it seems rather combative and I fear having my work ripped to shreds. My heart keeps telling me "take The KLF back to FA status!" and then the head says "no!!!!!" :)

312:

Glad you're okay with the present-tense thing. As far as the note about "Thumb" goes, as with anything else I'm adding, feel free to rework, move or ditch entirely – that's understood, you've probably got a better feel for the article as a

264:

I agree with you, to have the commentary or description of songs in the analytical sections as present tense; those writers are being cited as existing literature, whereas a section on reviews is documenting reviews as events of the past.

1057:

doesn't even merit a single mention. To my way of thinking, when it comes to the lead we should be considering these omissions, from books about "classic" rock albums and important critics' lists, as much as the statements that do locate

2789:

essentially crystalises the differences between prog and art rock, explained there, and why Dark Side sits more comfortably in the latter category. Also found a review where Dark Side has been formally classified as art rock, FWIW:

1006:(for the sake of argument) is the 150th best according to reviewers is amongst the most acclaimed. Also, I do now see that you have some quotations and citations in "Legacy and reappraisal" which attribute importance, so that's cool. 560:

I read that “Redacting” info and my understanding is that once a discussion has been replied to, it can’t be “Redacted”, so the next best thing is simply to “Close” it. It doesn’t belong on that page anyway, as you’ve pointed out.

1949: 1502:

I could ramble on about the GA and FA processes for hours - and will, so you might want to skip the history lesson and go direct to my question in the last paragraph! :) Besides the Beatles WikiProject, I set up a micro-project

564:

And FYI, my “shouty” and angry comments every time my edit was reverted were the result of me not seeing the reason it was repeatedly reverted - I didn’t see those posts until later, and the first thing I saw was “blathering”.

3536:

This is the first I've heard of Kenny Womack's book being "acclaimed" (who by?!). He gives 23 songs because that was the number actually recorded at Esher. As I understand it (I think it's covered in Richie Unterberger's book

2741:

been used as a TV theme song doesn't mean it's some sort of new development or breakaway from the subject. If there's more commentary to add about this recording's significance, from reliable sources, that would be different.

336:

So, something like that ... Not that I'm volunteering for the task elsewhere, but I can see (because biographers go on about it so much) that this sort of power play is behind every Stones album at least until the late '90s.

2258:

That's definitely a deal – IMM looks like being the next one, and I'll keep you informed about those others. Yeah, with "If Not for You", I think it was mainly about why George ended up with such different lyrics from Bob's

942: 799:

was when they fully came of age and started making truly great albums (and then there's Sticky Fingers, Exile, Some Girls, etc) Anyway, my rating is besides the point, but let's talk about the article - and congrats on the

3005:'70s Bowie special from about 2017 – from memory, that included some MM and NME pieces. I bought it for a friend before she went on holiday; I'll see if she's still got it, but, well, I wouldn't hold get your hopes up ... 596: 597:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=69

3596:

possibly seen as purely disruptive editing at the Who – an unfortunate consequence of gaining a bad reputation, I guess. Which is a shame because I thought he made some decent improvements to the Beach Boys lead, too.

1950: 84:

Happy new year, and thank you for the feedback :) I've expanded a bit about this from the Davis book and nominated the article. I look forward to the review, and potentially featured article nomination in the future.

963:

demerits the album for content it disregards as "misogynistic". Which is not surprising, given their target audience and today's political climate. It is actually impressive the album even made their list's top 100.

4355:, I had to add 2 new cats, so I decided to just add both and remove the parent cat. I have no idea know how you like to organize categories, so I thought reverting was unnecessary, but this is just how it works. 1617:

their importance relative to the inner circle who are absent. As for "The Scotch of St. James" - I had to look it up. Beats me. (I then had to double check it wasn't me who put it there in the first place ;) but

2431:

recently. It relies much on Hull's account (would this be a primary source issue?), and I can't find a usable image of him online - the only image I can find at all is what looks like a selfie, published in the

2052:

solid shape. Are you ever planning to bring it to GA? I'd be happy to do the review (well, of course depending when you nominated it, I can't promise now I'd definitely have time then). Cool, talk to you soon.

550:

All I wanted to say is that I will “Close” that Lennon & McCartney credit discussion on the “Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da” Talk page, and introduce the topic on the appropriate page which you kindly pointed me to.

3157: 511: 924:

Hi. I appreciate your opinions, but the sources cited and summarized in the article do support those summaries. The claim that it is the Stones' most important/formative album is also directly supported in

3167: 3159: 4346:

As far as I know, you can't add cats "in between" others with HotCat, so that's why the new cat was added at the very bottom. You can modify them, however, which is probably what I should have done for

4071:

that the biographers don't mention, and I was hoping you'd be able to help me out with these two? I'd greatly appreciate it. If you're no longer a subscriber then don't worry about it. Thanks man :-) –

1220:

rankings in album articles across the encyclopedia, caused a bit of a stir. I supported the inclusion, partly to ensure a UK voice in the face of the almost ubiquitous presence of an album's ranking on

3985:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 2786:

page itself, already implicitly linked, has numerous references to Pink Floyd, and even a picture of them performing Dark Side of The Moon. My summarily reverted genre classification debate section

1965: 2990:? I searched, quickly, in the 1971 and 1972 issues for "inventive" and "Hunky" but nothing relevant came up. Might be worth looking at those mags in a bit more detail, though: as with titles in the 2946:? The one that calls the album "the most inventive piece of song-writing to have appeared on record in a considerable time". The haven't been able to find a name attached to this as Pegg only says " 2540:

overly creative), so they might not make the grade for a while. I think you've got the subject covered anyway; anything new might be a bonus, but it's only tangential. Will try to take a look soon.

2132:, hi again. Just about to nominate the article, would be great if you could grab it. I'll continue double-checking sources and applying last-minute polish until/if you take it – then I'll back off. 1149:

Much better; as per JG66 the lead still make it clear that the album is important and acclaimed, whilst no longer containing any ammunition for pedants like me :). Good edit; thanks from me too. --

3703:

Hi JG66! It's been a while since we talked so I thought I'd check-in. How are things going? I see you've been working on George's solo stuff. Ever thought about working on Paul's solo stuff, like "

816:, and frankly it isn't; the article itself claims the album is merely "the most important of the Stones' early, formative music". Personally, I would tone down the claims in the lead a little. -- 547:

Apologies again for replying on your personal Talk page as opposed to the original Talk page, but once again, that doesn’t seem to work for me. This is my final post to you, so just delete it.

987:

s standing with those contemporaneous works, that as you say deems it not on-par, I would be glad to see it incorporated in the article. Then of course, it would diminish the summarizing claim.

2514:

Those are fair points, and Hull echoed the question of notability (having imagined in the past if someone had started an article on him) in his email back to me. I've attempted a real lead for

2793:. I grew up in the seventies, listening to Dark Side on my Uncle's HMV BSR turntable, and Floyd was never considered prog then; that was the domain of Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, ELP, et al: 1042:, I take your point that further music historian commentary would be welcome, which would then affect the picture given in summary in the lead, but the point I'm making refers to the album's 750:, big thanks, and ditto from me. Great job in pulling the article together (perhaps your example will inspire me to pull my finger out and get back on the nomination trail sometime soon ...). 3772:

contribute), but also because his description of the period, decades later, can be so at odds with most others people's. Meaning, there's sort of two layers of disingenuousness on his part.

2803:

P.S. Nothing in the annals of rock can touch that moment when David Gilmour scrapes his pick down the A string, then launches into those first few imperious bends of the Time guitar solo.

4095:

piece via Pegg, but you should be able to access that for free at RBP, no? I think you'd have to sign up for the monthly newsletter, but that's quite fun (well, it doesn't cost anything).

2500:. He's also something of a part-time critic, but his work has received attention in its own right, just not quite enough to make me go ahead and start an article, if I remember right. 4001: 1537:

I don't remember FAC being unfriendly or excessively fussy in those days. Perhaps it was too lax then and that's why we got delisted (our other FAs do still hold the status, however).

1479:

at least on the topics currently under discussion. I apologise for taking up so much of your time. If you ever need anything feel free to ping me or drop me a line on my talk page. --

685: 325:. And, to link with the Stones-women point, it also brings out in Jagger a sense of entitlement: he wants a companion commensurate with his elevated social standing, the sister of a 3225: 1499:

which might get more eyes on the issue than a post on the template talk page. The template only has 50 watchers (seems extraordinarily low to me!), whereas the WikiProject has 128.

584: 526: 3971: 1394:

I do not consider this canvassing, as for all I know you may agree with the reversion; it's just that you're one of the few folks still around that I know from the early days of

1732:

Their story is astonishing, indeed, and the age at which they achievemed what they did is something which still floors me. Even Brian Epstein was relatively young - dead at 32!

1046:

from such analysis (which, by definition, is impossible to bring to the article). When working on the section(s) we're talking about, I felt sure a book like Carys Wyn Jones'

1228:

s best albums list (and no one else's), also because the book features quite heavily in the Carys Wyn Jones book mentioned above. Wyn Jones cites and lists each of the three

4297:

Sorry, I don't know what the SUBCAT business is about. I'm concerned about, and was referring to, why you take a renamed category and move it into an illogical position, eg

3491: 2111:

Sounds good, let me know when the article is ready for review, and hopefully I'll have time then. I likely should, but you know how it is, things can come up unexpectedly!

1786:(aka the greatest group ever in the greatest supercar ever, although one wag has commented "A very rare sight, three scousers in a fancy sports car that's not stolen" :)). 3170:

talk page is officially closed until further notice, I thought I may discuss some of my experience with The Beatles' songs growing up in the 2000's. I used to think that

240:" jars somewhat because these actions are presented in the same contemporal context as that of the album's creation in the mid 1960s. In some cases – not necessarily at 3530: 2324: 1009:

I'll leave it there for now as I'm getting a bit too tired to form a coherent argument :) and I was merely agreeing with JG66's concern that the importance might be

4027: 3040: 2433: 1388: 1074:

appears on so many lists is the album's page at Acclaimed. I think there'd be no shortage of sources (outside album reviews and features on the artists) that say

2812: 405:

Also relieved from the point of view of progress on the article. Still trying to get that Background section to serve its purpose, eg it's tempting to introduce

3680: 2777: 2339: 2013:

I see you've made significant edits—hundreds—on numerous music articles since 2012. Thanks to editors like you, such cultural knowledge is readily accessible.

1495:

Ah. I wasn't aware of any personal dispute; now this really looks live canvassing! I must therefore tread carefully. The best bet I think will be if I post at

3740:

to some George H GAs, actually. I'd built up such a pile of extra info to add to the articles, over several years, and then realising the 50th anniversary of

3584:. Yes, it was definitely an improvement – like you said, large record sales don't necessarily equate to widespread influence, and vice versa. (eg, The Band's 3391: 3069: 2852: 4091:

Hiya zim. Yep, still RBP-ing – I'm gonna have to start selling guitars and books to fund the habit. You mention having an overview of the great Jon Savage's

673: 2834: 2518:, along with some additions and consolidation of content, and have nominated it. I look forward to any improvements you can make, if you can and see fit. 1534:(positively), and it's been ripped off by hundreds or thousands of journalists, authors and websites. I often think we should have written a book instead. 2899: 2868: 2804: 1639:. I love that song but had no idea it is critically acclaimed and received lots of airplay. You should imho have this article on your GA candidates list. 1310: 57:

One thing I remember leaving unfinished – in that it's an issue that appears to have informed the writing and recording of the album – is the arrival of

4363: 4341: 4327: 4310: 4045:

from many months back. Are you still a subscriber to rock's backpages? If so I was wondering if you could help me out. I'm working on expanding Bowie's

2876: 2097:

See you there perhaps. I always enjoy your (and Mick Gold's) improvements at Bob Dylan, btw. Had some ideas for Bob's page but that's for another time.

757:

was a major leap for the Stones, and it was one of the incremental steps towards rock/pop's cultural validation, but it wasn't up at the level of, say,

32: 1106:, etc. regularly appear towards the top of critics' lists of the best albums of all time – indeed, I know this for a fact, from reading books such as 854:: There's nothing I like more than original thinking in life, as opposed to simply following the crowd, and especially here on my talk page. But wow, 3522: 2599:

within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.

2393:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can

1983: 245:

I'd be tempted to go with present tense as much as possible ("According to music critic Ian MacDonald ...", "Tom Moon likens it ... but adds ...").

3848: 2769: 2750: 3642: 2417: 655: 219:, though, I'd say each and every Stones track is significant and treated as such by commentators, which would make the detailed coverage at, say, 3873:. Yes, I was on the point of reporting the editor at AN/EW so it's no surprise they're the subject of an AN report now. I'll comment there soon. 3605: 2910:

Hi all, I don't have anything to add here. Best to keep discussion of this issue at Talk:TDSOTM so all editors get a chance to weigh in. Thanks,

3254: 3145: 3133: 3116: 3104: 2919: 2664:, which is the only involvement I've had with it. I'd say get on to user:Muso805, who seems to have every edition of every Larkin book. Cheers, 1871: 1764:

in the Beatles story. If you've not seen that film you might want to check it out; I cannot of course guarantee that it hasn't aged horribly! --

1659: 1426: 4291: 3421: 3403: 697: 333:, apparently). Meantime, it bugs him and Oldham no end that Jones so effortlessly commands attention from the press and the Chelsea arts scene. 3551: 3385: 1033: 478: 3940: 3925: 2867:

on the talk page; thanks for taking the time to track down those sources. Just want to see an accurate representation of this masterpiece.

2619: 2519: 2463: 2444: 1128: 1039: 988: 965: 946: 832: 747: 730: 399: 386: 356: 295: 281: 266: 205: 181: 152: 130: 108: 86: 51: 36: 3334: 3291: 2710: 2471: 1773: 1727: 1630: 1611: 1588: 1566: 1488: 1456: 1288: 1270: 1261:

understanding that music critics have taken part. But yes, it does appear to have been compiled from listeners' opinions for the main part.

1201: 1158: 1123: 996: 973: 907: 846: 825: 541: 4332:

It automatically moves categories to the bottom a page? Well, what a crap solution that is, and it's obviously gonna piss some people off.

3882: 3485: 2363: 2357: 2314: 2291: 2276: 2236: 2176: 2159: 2141: 2120: 2106: 2040: 929:. It actually is discussed in the same breath as such albums in that section -- even one of the few dissenting views cited (Rob Young from 623: 4267: 4179: 2549: 2527: 2509: 954: 941:, it had been listed as the 125th most acclaimed album. And now, it has moved down 25 spots to 150th, after seven years and, very likely, 926: 786: 422: 394: 380: 346: 303: 289: 274: 189: 175: 160: 138: 124: 94: 75: 4223: 4205: 4161: 4131: 3948: 3829: 3805: 3032: 3014: 2840: 2673: 1378: 3349:

There was no need for the "you're not all there" comment. That's a disgusting thing to say on a platform like Knowledge. Keep it civil.

2227:

interactions here, along with mine and (long-retired) Evanh2008, to be my absolute top experiences on Knowledge. Big thanks once again!

1144: 641: 3692: 2722: 2536:

came up at Rock's Backpages quite recently. Nothing there that expands on what you're already added on things post-1990, unfortunately.

3440: 2591:

for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a

2263:

track. I read something years ago – obviously when you and I were discussing it – about how Bob gave him a rough home demo, but a bit

1333: 753:

I did get the feeling, from occasionally seeing your edits to the lead, particularly, that we might be "bigging up" the album unduly.

3907: 572:

I did respond on that Talk page, saying essentially what I said here, with a bit more detail, which you can read or not, up to you.

4236:

Hi JG66! I wanted to know if I could request your assistance with Rock's Backpages again? I'm wanting these two reviews for Bowie's

4085: 1852:

To answer your other question "why so many , why not use commas occasionally, esp in shorter sentences?": Maybe I don't like commas?

2787: 1919: 660:

p.s. have had a quick look. I am far from a expert on record sales. I'd be interested to see what a real popular music expert like

2963: 433: 294:

Great work overall! The sections have more shape and sense to them in light of your additions and rearrangements of certain text.

3462: 2561: 1132: 506: 3663: 2022: 738: 460: 236:

it). To me, the past tense in instances such as "Jagger ... was said by Margotin and Guesdon" and "Ian MacDonald said that like

2694: 2215: 1944: 2734: 2596: 2394: 3863: 3688: 885: 364: 44: 4319:

works. It automatically places newly added categories at the bottom of a page. Technically, I didn't move anything myself.

4023: 3768:

is extraordinary (in my opinion) in its unravelling of these smokescreens and its insights into McCartney's motivations ...

3574: 1021: 497:

on creating it, if this is something with which you might be able to help, or know a coding editor who can. With thanks, --

258: 1410: 608: 3275:

a 1950s R 'n R singer. (This is part of the pastiche/parody quality that started to annoy critics in 1968, so I've read.)

3138:

Don't worry - I suggest we keep it one place, and at WT:ANI, you'll get more eyes (and therefore hopefully input) there.

1935:: Thank you, that's really too kind. And it means a lot coming from one of the founders of the project, of course. Best, 1328: 494: 4036: 3358: 2660: 2578: 2380: 1047: 3086: 876:

I agree one would expect to see a consistent ranking within critics' top 10s (I'd stretch to top 20 or 30) to justify

4243: 3399: 2452: 1846: 557:

I responded via editing the raw HTML and made each of your usernames hyperlinks, but even that didn’t seem to work.

3726: 3109:

The bot archives any discussion that has not been discussed in 3 days. What is your issue, let's see if I can help.

2985: 2648: 4238: 3895: 3851:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Not about you, but as I had to mention you...

3775:

Sorry, Zim – way more here than you wanted, right?(!) This is all related to feelings I've had for years about the

3638: 2888: 2794: 1642:

From there I've found myself reading a number of articles, many of which I'm sure are your work. I learnt a lot in

894: 726: 1135:. I think the wording's far more accurate, without taking anything away from the album's impact and significance. 4019: 2252: 2200: 2061: 4042: 2931: 2791: 791:

Impartial observer here who dropped by on Beatles business. I personally think the first great Stones album was

3327: 3247: 3218: 2925: 1694:"Scruffs" – it's a lovely, cheeky little song, isn't it? The doubled slide and backing vocals are just sublime. 554:

I read your comments as well as one by SundayClose, but I never get a “Reply” text-box whereby I can respond.

166:

album. Oh yes, I'd almost forgotten about the long, long wait that often ensues between nomination and review.

2934:, would you be able to check out the rock backpages site and see if you could find the author of the original 3888: 3611: 2978: 2439:. So I ask if it would be worth nominating for good-article review? Also, I'm considering doing the same for 4066: 1856:

FA status which I gather is dedicated almost entirely to the themes behind the KLF and their connections to

1401:

If you choose to reply and do so here, please ping me. I have the template and template talk watchlisted. --

1300: 4273: 3994: 3789: 3444: 2330:

returned John and George back to eternity but I'm interested in your opinion of the name change. Stay safe

2150:

OK, JG. I’m ready to take it. It may not be a super fast review but I’ll keep at it till it’s done. Cheers,

2082: 1877: 4060: 4006: 3684: 3651: 3634: 3431: 3278:

When I was a kid and first heard the Beatles – must've been compilations like the Red and Blue albums or

884:

is only a ranking of the best albums from the 1960s, btw. When helping to expand the section that became

703: 4298: 4249: 3390:

Hi JG66, Isaacsorry has continued to make inappropriate edits to ledes since this warning. I've made an

1989: 1961: 484: 4052: 2887:"Floyd was never considered prog then; that was the domain of Genesis, Yes, King Crimson, ELP, et al: 1862:. I have a copy of the book in my possession; now all I need is a virus-free beach to read it on :) -- 1739:

be argued - that The Beatles (like the KLF) have a story more interesting than their music; just like

4356: 4320: 4284: 3668: 2848: 2830: 2765: 2730: 2825:

I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan, and have seen it referred to as art rock. I'll look for a source or two.

2533: 1691:

giving me new items to respond to each time, because you raise points that resonate with me also ...

1618: 4051:

currently and noticed a few reviews of the album available on RB. Pegg gave me a brief overview of

3764:

comfortable scenario in the present. I know you're familiar with Peter Doggett's writing; his book

2756: 2679: 2631: 1858: 1550:

review, I'd seriously consider skipping GA now and go straight to FA (or not bother with either:)).

1210: 1176: 938: 669: 651: 26: 2973:. Sorry, I checked but can't see anything there. I think it's most likely to have been written by 3837: 3570: 3183: 3046: 2974: 2895: 2563: 2365: 1526:. "The KLF was named best article in the Humanities & Culture class at Wikimania 2006" - but 1351: 1324: 1309:, just because you don't care about TYPE in the infobox, that doesn't mean nobody else does. See 432: 321:'s representation, and they've suddenly got money to burn in early '66. So that attitude informs 249:

of course, but FWIW, this is an approach I've followed for years and seen others adhere to also.

115:

if I did? If so, I completely understand; I know how the nom thing can get a touch stressful ...

2459: 3142: 3113: 3083: 2872: 2808: 2494: 1553:

One Beatles-related article I'd always hoped would get some love and maybe rise to GA or FA is

1496: 3231:

Would you agree with my statements? I'm just interested in hearing what you think about it. ―

3982: 2481:

highlighting him merely for his role in elevating appreciation of another critic's writings.

1971: 1957: 4210:

Thank you so much! I copied all the info onto a word doc and removed from my sandbox :-) –

3993:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 3676: 3526: 3354: 3199: 2861: 2844: 2826: 2761: 2726: 2219: 2090: 2078: 1831: 1756: 1636: 1467: 589: 450: 2214:

York in late '68, Apple becomes bedlam: the Angels have arrived, intending to take on the

8: 3936: 3903: 3754:

almost ready to roll for GA nom, just didn't pull the trigger. Had always thought I'd do

2629:

Hi JG66! I have a quick question. Do you happen to own the 3rd edition of Colin Larkin's

2390: 1699: 1338: 1306: 665: 647: 629: 2760:

being replaced, but I doubt those would count as reliable sources. I'll look some more.

1974:: Understood, thanks. And I appreciate you've given the other editor a similar message. 1602:, because that was a '60s club that at least had some direct involvement from a Beatle. 143:

Don't feel a rush or pressure to contribute or make improvements either. There is time.

4145: 3852: 3812: 3592:

and Nick Drake's albums never sold in huge numbers but they're all highly influential.)

3581: 3566: 3321: 3263:

Hi C.Syde. Sorry, I don't have a lot to offer on this – and I had to look up that word

3241: 3212: 2891: 2690: 2658:, I'm afraid I don't have any of his titles. The book is mentioned in Carys Wyn Jones' 1915: 1867: 1842: 1769: 1655: 1626: 1562: 1484: 1422: 1406: 1389:

Template_talk:The_Beatles#Inner_circle_missing,_notably_Brian_Epstein_and_George_Martin

1315: 1284: 1197: 1154: 1029: 1017: 842: 821: 769:

in most critics' and music historians' view, partly because the Stones went on to make

729:

is now a featured article. It's been great working with you recently. Hope all's well.

693: 580: 522: 502: 62: 1346:

Do you have any idea or opinion about why the Beatles template includes articles like

1114:

from the same type of source, which is why it strikes me as out of place in the lead.

4193: 3965: 3785: 3704: 3456: 3139: 3121: 3110: 3092: 3080: 3065: 2615: 2428: 2413: 2335: 2287: 2248: 2196: 2155: 2116: 2057: 2018: 1923: 1703: 1395: 604: 4337: 4316: 4306: 4279: 4201: 4166:

Also, thanks for letting me know Savage's review was free. Just made an account! –

4127: 4013: 3978: 3921: 3878: 3801: 3713:? I would myself but still got a ton of Bowie stuff to do. :-) Hope all is well! – 3698: 3673:

What is wrong with crediting Ringo singing backing vocals on Flying and Hey Jude?

3659: 3601: 3547: 3481: 3417: 3409: 3395: 3381: 3287: 3129: 3100: 3010: 3001: 2915: 2746: 2716: 2706: 2669: 2624: 2545: 2523: 2505: 2467: 2448: 2422: 2353: 2310: 2272: 2232: 2172: 2137: 2102: 2036: 1979: 1956:

I strongly suggest that you stop edit warring over pointless templates at the AfD.

1951:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination)

1940: 1723: 1607: 1584: 1452: 1266: 1140: 1119: 992: 969: 950: 903: 782: 734: 637: 619: 537: 474: 418: 390: 376: 360: 342: 299: 285: 270: 254: 185: 171: 156: 149:

the GA criteria on stability only raises edit warring or content disputes as issues

148: 144: 134: 120: 90: 71: 58: 40: 4103: 3793: 3412:, I'm sorry to hear that. I may well weigh in at the ANI thread sometime. Cheers, 1519:

but came back last year (whether I am back permanently or not remains to be seen).

4352: 4262: 4218: 4174: 4156: 4148:

and let me do the rest I'm more than happy to do it that way. Thanks again :-) –

4080: 3824: 3721: 3557: 3364: 3350: 3344: 3175: 3027: 2958: 2643: 1816: 1541:

articles. As an editor all you get, really, is bragging rights/a userbox and the

1371: 934: 805: 466: 441: 406: 215: 3781: 3516:

So, wikipedia.org being a "reliable source", we can agree on "27 songs", right?

1016:

BTW, Q Magazine writers ranked the 100 Best British albums in 2000 (reposted by

129:

Of course it wouldn't be a problem. Please do. Anything to improve the article.

4047: 3990: 3932: 3913: 3899: 3776: 3187: 2588: 2376: 2369: 1800: 1643: 1275:

That's all very interesting, thanks. Whilst I'm sure I'd find much to enjoy in

804:

list and 98 at Pitchfork, and is ranked 150 according to the review aggregater

795:, but that's an insane-minority view :) It's probably not a minority view that 686:

Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_187#In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida_(album)

490: 330: 326: 17: 1779: 439:

Sorry, my memory isn't what it used to be :P Again thanx for the heads up. -

3986: 3313: 3233: 3204: 2686: 2348:, hi. Yeah, what a strange title ... I'll weigh in at the talk page. Cheers, 1932: 1911: 1863: 1838: 1765: 1680: 1651: 1622: 1621:). Thanks for the responses and for reading this far, if you got this far. -- 1571: 1558: 1504: 1480: 1436: 1418: 1402: 1367: 1359: 1355: 1347: 1280: 1206: 1193: 1150: 1110:

that are built around this point. But I've not read any such statement about

1025: 851: 838: 817: 689: 576: 518: 498: 2950:

called it" and I believe Cann as well. I'd greatly appreciate it! Thanks. –

1574:: Quick reply, just on your opening point here (I'm still responding on the 646:

I got a ping thanks, but had not read the detail. Will try and take a look.

489:

Since you mentioned you found "cite organization" a possibly good template,

4348: 3870: 3855: 3792:. And during Bowie's lifetime, our article didn't shy away from discussing 3449: 3195: 3061: 3057: 2936: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2345: 2331: 2283: 2244: 2207: 2192: 2164: 2151: 2129: 2112: 2068: 2053: 2014: 1900: 880:

being "among the most acclaimed records in history". And that number 98 at

661: 600: 355:

for the future, if I come back. Hopefully I do, but either way, take care.

3620: 1746:

I've not been to Hawaii (but don't care much for the '79 album anyway); I

1374:? I mean, without Mr Epstein we'd probably not be having this discussion. 3709: 3179: 3171: 3074: 2302: 2218:

and "sort out Czechoslovakia", but terrifying everyone at Apple; and the

2086: 2046: 1554: 1232:

editions' top rankings in the same company as the top albums in lists by

402:, I'm so pleaded to hear it – sounded a bit scary, your previous message. 318: 3997:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

3506: 1013:

overstated; you've been through FA review and that's good enough for me.

4256: 4212: 4185: 4168: 4150: 4074: 3975:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

3818: 3733: 3715: 3021: 2970: 2952: 2942: 2655: 2637: 1998: 1783: 1707: 1599: 1216:

Last year someone went all out in adding mention of the various Larkin

3510: 3019:

Understandable. I'll see what else I can find. Thanks for checking! –

2583: 2483:(I was a bit surprised also when you added the tomhull.com ratings at 2385: 1279:

it won't help me with KLF articles as they weren't a rock band :) . --

712: 512:

Final Reply - Agreed Lennon & McCartney - No further talk / Redact

4333: 4302: 4283:

the Netherlands, so that's why I moved them. What's wrong with that?

4197: 4123: 3957: 3917: 3874: 3797: 3655: 3597: 3543: 3477: 3413: 3377: 3371:

For a while, this has become so commonplace that I'm thinking, "What

3283: 3264: 3178:-sung compositions, because I didn't originally know that George and 3125: 3096: 3050: 3006: 2911: 2742: 2702: 2665: 2574: 2567: 2541: 2515: 2501: 2440: 2349: 2306: 2268: 2228: 2168: 2133: 2098: 2032: 1975: 1936: 1740: 1719: 1603: 1580: 1448: 1363: 1262: 1136: 1115: 899: 778: 633: 615: 533: 470: 414: 372: 338: 250: 167: 116: 67: 4144:

for 1979. But yeah if you wanna post any reviews on my talk page or

3376:

should appear in the lead, not your (or anyone's) personal opinion.

1822:

disappeared from that and other articles during my semi-retirement!

1650:(a further message will follow with regards to this observation). -- 4301:, where suddenly a chart-topping cat sits removed from the others. 3476:

me ... Not much to say, but I've replied on the article talk page.

3394:

about his editing if you'd like to add any additional information.

2783: 2595:

under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can

1890: 1447:

Cheers, ... oh, and thanks for your role in starting the project.

4106:

seems to have every single issue for 1974–78 and 1980, but not a

3558: 1806: 1523: 1512: 1508: 980:

However, if the article is missing music-historian commentary on

4315:

Do you mean why did I move the category on the page? That's how

4010:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 3045:

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

1778:

PS As both a fan of the Beatles (yes, guilty) and a petrolhead,

1024:. Of course, taken individually these lists mean very little. -- 4000:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

3565:

lead. But it didn't look right to me in its previous phrasing.

2818:

JG66, please forgive me jumping in on your talk page like this.

1192:

are placed and if so at what positions and in which edition? --

684:

Procedural note. The DRN thread discussed here was archived to

3969:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

2458:

I sent Hull a message about his article via his website lol -

2427:

I see you have some experience with music critic bios. I made

1710:" such a treat, same for his collaborations with Ravi Shankar. 2635:(2000) and if not would you know someone who does? Thanks! – 933:) acknowledges the existence of such a reputation. As far as 2977:, but that's only a semi-informed guess. If not, then maybe 35:, would you like to co-nominate the article for GA with me? 3182:

sang lead. Yet I was confused as to why Ringo's vocal on "

2223:

interaction with causes, end up being a magnet for it all.

4254:. I'd greatly appreciate it. Hope things are well! :-) – 4121:

quite by mistake, which you should immediately delete ...

1020:), and Aftermath wasn't listed. It wasn't in NME's 1993 892:

did not appear at all in the original (1978) edition of

385:

Hey, I'm back for now. Brilliant work in the mean time.

228:

in the configuration first released by London Records.)

3981:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

3507:

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Beatles_bootleg_recordings

3049:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4110:

for '79. Bizarre. (I'm sure you tried there first up.)

3736:– yeah, life's good thanks. It's been a case of going 2460:

he had recognized a previous edit I made with his name

3511:

https://en.wikipedia.org/The_Beatles_(album)#Reissues

1743:

is a soap opera occasionally interrupted by racing...

145:

The GAN list for album articles looks very backlogged

4059:

so I'm good on that. However, I found two more from

1683:: Oh boy, you're showering me with praise (which is 1635:The talk about the Apple scruffs led me to reading 1557:. Is that article on your radar for future work? -- 1383: 1311:

Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes

495:

User talk:Debresser#Template a technical discussion

1343:Gosh, you've been busy. Congrats on all the GAs! 3633:Thank you for fixing my errors. Kind regards, -- 2532:Hi. Yeah, I'd been thinking of Album era since a 2325:Collaborations involving multiple ex-Beatles page 469:: Very good of you, big thanks. Have a nice day. 3744:was coming up finally got me down to work there. 3041:Disambiguation link notification for September 2 2167:, that's great news. Just nominating now. Best, 3849:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1735:It could be argued - perhaps not by me, but it 1507:to cover the works of the British band/artists 1377:I attempted to re-add the inner circle but was 837:Ping, in case you're not watching this page. -- 4136:I did use world radio history for all the old 2778:The Dark Side of the Moon genre classification 2077:articles from that pool of 20, anyway (eg, vs 2031:Thank you so much, Israell! You're very kind. 1038:I still think its standing is being inflated. 628:Not sure if Martin got your message. Pinging 614:Hi there. I've just posted something at DRN. 371:then even better. Best of luck, stay strong. 3790:Eric Clapton#Political views and controversy 2301:But "Don't Bother Me", ah ... the Stones or 409:there, since several commentators highlight 3492:my edit to "Circles (George Harrison song)" 2839:I posted a note with linked sources on the 2489:That's my feeling, from a distance, anyway. 1387:. I have left my thoughts on the reversion 4140:issues, but of course, they wouldn't have 3079:Please stop un-archiving old discussions. 1070:– the only source we have to support that 886:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)#Accolades 61:in Brian Jones' life and the slow exit of 1463:I've added the 2 people you mentioned to 1760:did a lot to convince me that there was 3447:just asking for clarification. Cheers. 2782:Thanks for your advice. The Knowledge 1837:Again, thanks for the enlightenment. -- 532:I've replied on the article talk page. 111:, no probs, and happy new year from me. 14: 2443:, just need to expand the lead first. 1750:been to India but not Rishikesh (yet). 232:vocal session for Out of Time, Jagger 3158:Carrying on what we discussed on the 2305:could've done that song really well. 1354:(?!), and yet does not have room for 3966:2020 Arbitration Committee elections 329:was no longer sufficient (he wanted 4102:review, I can't believe your luck: 3949:ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message 3847:There is currently a discussion at 3654:. Thanks, that's most kind of you. 2755:I added a bit to it taken from the 23: 4041:Hi JG66! I wanted to follow up on 1782:is very cool - the Threatles in a 24: 4381: 3472:me there – I thought it was just 1133:recent change to the article lead 943:many hundreds of thousands albums 860:(Mind you – whisper it – I'd put 3956: 3842: 3619: 3186:" sounded nothing like John and 2999:other thing I can think of is a 2582: 2384: 1997: 1889: 727:Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) 711: 413:as a document of that scene ... 4278:I moved the categories because 4188:, it's there. Please deal with 4004:and submit your choices on the 895:Critic's Choice: Top 200 Albums 725:Thanks to your brilliant work, 3780:the article's a BLP, but take 3386:15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3359:10:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 3335:14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC) 3292:06:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3255:00:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC) 3226:10:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC) 3146:12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 3134:12:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 3117:12:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 3105:12:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 3087:12:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC) 1809:, which I am still reviewing. 13: 1: 4364:18:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4342:18:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4328:18:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4311:18:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4292:18:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC) 4028:02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC) 3983:Knowledge arbitration process 3941:09:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3926:08:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3908:08:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC) 3883:01:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC) 3864:19:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC) 3830:16:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 3806:04:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC) 3445:Yesterday and Today talk page 3070:06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 959:As explained in their essay, 585:04:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC) 45:21:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC) 4268:19:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC) 4224:02:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC) 4206:16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 4180:16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 4162:16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 4132:02:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 4104:American/World Radio History 4086:01:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC) 3766:You Never Give Me Your Money 3727:22:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC) 3693:07:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC) 3664:01:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC) 3643:22:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC) 3606:04:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC) 3575:18:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 3166:Since the discussion on the 2083:While My Guitar Gently Weeps 542:02:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 527:19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 507:10:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC) 479:03:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 461:03:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC) 423:04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC) 395:04:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC) 7: 3552:03:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 3531:15:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 3486:03:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC) 3463:12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC) 3422:02:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC) 3404:18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC) 3033:14:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 3015:09:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC) 2964:18:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC) 2932:your offer a few months ago 2920:06:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2900:05:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2877:15:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2853:03:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2835:01:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2813:20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 2770:21:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 2751:04:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 2735:04:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 2397:to appear in Did you know. 381:00:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC) 365:22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 347:14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 304:09:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 290:09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 275:09:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 259:06:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 190:22:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC) 176:13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 161:08:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 139:08:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 125:06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 95:06:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 76:01:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC) 10: 4386: 4020:MediaWiki message delivery 2996:Uncut Ultimate Music Guide 2711:14:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2695:13:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 2121:14:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC) 2107:05:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC) 2062:18:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 2041:04:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC) 2023:22:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 1984:17:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 1966:17:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) 1945:03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1920:01:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1872:02:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1847:22:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1774:05:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1728:04:21, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1660:01:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1631:05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1612:04:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1589:06:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1567:05:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1522:So, our flagship article, 1489:03:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1457:04:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1427:03:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1411:03:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1334:00:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1289:02:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1271:13:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1202:07:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1159:01:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1145:01:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC) 1124:13:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 1034:06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 997:06:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 974:06:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 955:06:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 908:06:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 847:05:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 826:03:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 787:04:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC) 739:15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC) 698:06:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC) 3894:the discussion, which is 3618: 3174:sang lead on most of the 2930:Hi JG66! Following up to 2674:05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC) 2649:14:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC) 2620:14:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC) 2550:15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC) 2528:11:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC) 2510:12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 2472:10:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 2453:09:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 2003: 1996: 1895: 1888: 1805:Thanks for your edits to 710: 674:14:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 656:13:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 642:13:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 624:12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 609:10:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC) 4037:Rock's Backpages request 4018:to your user talk page. 2757:Life_Goes_On_(TV_series) 2632:All Time Top 1000 Albums 2418:16:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 2315:03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 2292:20:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC) 2277:04:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 2253:01:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 2237:03:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC) 2201:16:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC) 1859:The Illuminatus! Trilogy 1211:All Time Top 1000 Albums 1177:All Time Top 1000 Albums 3168:Happiness is a Warm Gun 3160:Happiness is a Warm Gun 3047:Yellow Submarine (song) 2984:I suppose you've tried 2358:15:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 2340:14:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC) 2177:15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 2160:14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 2142:11:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 1901:WikiProject The Beatles 1352:The Scotch of St. James 1179:(which is cited in the 1062:among rarefied company. 1022:All-Time top 100 either 3786:Phil Collins#Criticism 3652:ImprovedWikiImprovment 2926:Rock backpages request 2843:. See what you think. 1131:: Big thanks for your 927:Legacy and reappraisal 3979:Arbitration Committee 3963:Hello! Voting in the 3889:The Crown (tv series) 3782:Yoko Ono#Public image 3627:The Original Barnstar 3468:Oh, you were talking 3443:I made a post on the 2601:Message delivered by 2399:Message delivered by 1812:I now understand why 1213:article, from memory. 872:, so what do I know?) 719:The Teamwork Barnstar 493:and I have started a 4274:Netherlands category 3747:Paul's stuff? Ah ... 3519:Beste Gruesse, Gerd 3200:Back in the U.S.S.R. 3058:Opt-out instructions 2091:Magical Mystery Tour 2079:All You Need Is Love 1878:The Beatles Barnstar 1832:Template talk:Cquote 1780:this, from Anthology 1757:The Compleat Beatles 1637:Apple Scruffs (song) 3612:A barnstar for you! 3586:Music from Big Pink 3432:Yesterday and Today 2987:The History of Rock 2577:you nominated as a 2391:Talk:Old Brown Shoe 2379:you nominated as a 1700:Here Comes the Moon 1350:(nice article) and 1175:While I'm here, is 1094:, the White Album, 814:Blood on the Tracks 704:A barnstar for you! 664:would have to say. 599:kind regards to you 238:Between the Buttons 33:you didn't see here 3995:arbitration policy 3539:Unreleased Beatles 2216:Warsaw Pact forces 2007:The Music Barnstar 1990:The Music Barnstar 1307:The Beatles' Story 1301:The Beatles' Story 485:RE: CS1 discussion 63:Chrissie Shrimpton 4122: 4034: 4033: 3794:his controversies 3750:Years ago, I had 3695: 3679:comment added by 3669:original research 3648: 3647: 3588:, Van Morrison's 3402: 2609: 2488: 2429:Tom Hull (critic) 2407: 2094: 2028: 2027: 1930: 1929: 1704:Soft-Hearted Hana 1532:about the article 1319: 888:, I noticed that 873: 856:Satanic Majesties 793:Satanic Majesties 744: 743: 458: 180:Great additions! 4377: 4361: 4325: 4289: 4120: 4017: 3960: 3953: 3952: 3861: 3858: 3846: 3845: 3816:projects. :-) – 3705:Maybe I'm Amazed 3674: 3623: 3616: 3615: 3461: 3459: 3453: 3398: 3333: 3330: 3324: 3318: 3316: 3253: 3250: 3244: 3238: 3236: 3224: 3221: 3215: 3209: 3207: 3184:Yellow Submarine 3002:Record Collector 2979:Richard Williams 2975:Roy Hollingworth 2865: 2680:Psychedelic rock 2600: 2586: 2495:Lester Bangs at 2482: 2398: 2388: 2073:It's one of the 2072: 2001: 1994: 1993: 1972:NinjaRobotPirate 1958:NinjaRobotPirate 1893: 1886: 1885: 1821: 1815: 1472: 1466: 1386: 1332: 1317: 1227: 1076:Blonde on Blonde 986: 862:Beatles for Sale 859: 836: 767:Blonde on Blonde 715: 708: 707: 459: 455: 448: 446: 59:Anita Pallenberg 27:Aftermath for GA 4385: 4384: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4357: 4353:Michelle (song) 4321: 4299:at Lady Madonna 4285: 4276: 4266: 4222: 4178: 4160: 4116:New York Rocker 4084: 4039: 4011: 3951: 3898:. Kind regards 3891: 3859: 3856: 3843: 3840: 3838:Powerful at ANI 3828: 3813:an entire album 3725: 3701: 3681:Tastypotato0932 3671: 3614: 3562: 3494: 3457: 3451: 3448: 3434: 3347: 3328: 3322: 3319: 3314: 3312: 3248: 3242: 3239: 3234: 3232: 3219: 3213: 3210: 3205: 3203: 3176:George Harrison 3164: 3077: 3043: 3031: 2962: 2928: 2862:Alden Loveshade 2859: 2845:Alden Loveshade 2827:Alden Loveshade 2780: 2762:Alden Loveshade 2727:Alden Loveshade 2719: 2682: 2647: 2627: 2605:, on behalf of 2571: 2435:RockCritics.com 2425: 2403:, on behalf of 2373: 2327: 2049: 1992: 1954: 1922:(co-founder of 1880: 1819: 1813: 1803: 1470: 1464: 1382: 1372:Alistair Taylor 1341: 1314: 1303: 1254:Critics' Choice 1252:, Gambaccini's 1225: 1096:Beggars Banquet 984: 937:'s tabulation, 935:Acclaimed Music 830: 806:Acclaimed Music 797:Beggars Banquet 771:Beggars Banquet 706: 592: 514: 487: 451: 442: 440: 437: 434:George Harrison 407:Swinging London 216:Beggars Banquet 213:(Starting with 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4383: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4275: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4260: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4216: 4182: 4172: 4154: 4111: 4096: 4078: 4038: 4035: 4032: 4031: 4002:the candidates 3972:eligible users 3961: 3950: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3839: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3822: 3777:Paul McCartney 3773: 3769: 3748: 3745: 3719: 3700: 3697: 3670: 3667: 3646: 3645: 3630: 3629: 3624: 3613: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3593: 3561: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3493: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3368: 3346: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3276: 3268: 3258: 3257: 3188:Paul McCartney 3163: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3076: 3073: 3042: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3025: 2982: 2956: 2927: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2880: 2879: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2823: 2819: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2681: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2661:The Rock Canon 2641: 2626: 2623: 2589:Talk:I Me Mine 2570: 2566:nomination of 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2537: 2490: 2475: 2474: 2424: 2421: 2377:Old Brown Shoe 2372: 2370:Old Brown Shoe 2368:nomination of 2362: 2361: 2360: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2295: 2294: 2240: 2239: 2224: 2211: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2145: 2144: 2124: 2123: 2095: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2026: 2025: 2010: 2009: 2004: 2002: 1991: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1953: 1948: 1928: 1927: 1906: 1905: 1896: 1894: 1879: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1853: 1825:Personally, I 1802: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1776: 1751: 1744: 1733: 1716:Beatles record 1711: 1695: 1692: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1644:Wah-Wah (song) 1640: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1551: 1547: 1538: 1535: 1528:nobody told us 1520: 1516: 1500: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1445: 1441: 1430: 1429: 1340: 1337: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1277:The Rock Canon 1214: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1108:The Rock Canon 1063: 1049:The Rock Canon 1014: 1007: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 874: 828: 801: 751: 742: 741: 722: 721: 716: 705: 702: 701: 700: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 666:Martinevans123 648:Martinevans123 591: 588: 545: 544: 513: 510: 491:User:Debresser 486: 483: 482: 481: 436: 431: 430: 429: 428: 427: 426: 425: 403: 352: 351: 350: 349: 334: 331:Julie Christie 314: 307: 306: 292: 277: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 141: 112: 100: 99: 98: 97: 79: 78: 55: 28: 25: 18:User talk:JG66 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4382: 4365: 4362: 4360: 4354: 4350: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4326: 4324: 4318: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4290: 4288: 4281: 4269: 4264: 4259: 4258: 4253: 4252: 4247: 4246: 4241: 4240: 4235: 4234: 4225: 4220: 4215: 4214: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4181: 4176: 4171: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4163: 4158: 4153: 4152: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4117: 4112: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4100:Record Mirror 4097: 4094: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4082: 4077: 4076: 4070: 4069: 4068:Record Mirror 4064: 4063: 4058: 4056: 4053:Jon Savage's 4050: 4049: 4044: 4030: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4015: 4009: 4008: 4003: 3998: 3996: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3974: 3973: 3968: 3967: 3962: 3959: 3955: 3954: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3884: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3867: 3866: 3865: 3862: 3854: 3850: 3831: 3826: 3821: 3820: 3814: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3767: 3762: 3759:subsequently 3757: 3753: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3723: 3718: 3717: 3712: 3711: 3706: 3696: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3682: 3678: 3666: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3644: 3640: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3617: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3594: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3582:Rodericksilly 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3567:Rodericksilly 3560: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3540: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3517: 3514: 3512: 3508: 3505:tapes (see 3502: 3498: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3460: 3455: 3454: 3446: 3442: 3437: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3374: 3369: 3366: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3336: 3331: 3325: 3317: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3274: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3256: 3251: 3245: 3237: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3222: 3216: 3208: 3201: 3197: 3191: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3161: 3147: 3144: 3141: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3085: 3082: 3072: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3054: 3052: 3048: 3034: 3029: 3024: 3023: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3003: 2997: 2993: 2992:NME Originals 2989: 2988: 2983: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2960: 2955: 2954: 2949: 2945: 2944: 2939: 2938: 2933: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2863: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2801: 2797: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2721:In regard to 2712: 2708: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2692: 2688: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2634: 2633: 2622: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2604: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2585: 2580: 2576: 2569: 2565: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2498: 2491: 2486: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2436: 2430: 2420: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2406: 2402: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2382: 2378: 2371: 2367: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2225: 2221: 2220:Radha Krishna 2217: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2005: 2000: 1995: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1952: 1947: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1902: 1897: 1892: 1887: 1884: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1860: 1854: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1833: 1828: 1823: 1818: 1810: 1808: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1752: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1641: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1619:nah, I'm good 1615: 1614: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1596: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1577: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1539: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1477: 1469: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1399: 1397: 1392: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1375: 1373: 1369: 1368:George Martin 1365: 1361: 1360:Brian Epstein 1357: 1356:Neil Aspinall 1353: 1349: 1348:Apple scruffs 1344: 1336: 1335: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1321: 1312: 1308: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234:Rolling Stone 1231: 1224: 1223:Rolling Stone 1219: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1064: 1061: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1004: 998: 994: 990: 983: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 971: 967: 962: 958: 957: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 909: 905: 901: 897: 896: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 857: 853: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 834: 829: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 802: 798: 794: 790: 789: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 749: 746: 745: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 723: 720: 717: 714: 709: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 658: 657: 653: 649: 645: 644: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 613: 612: 611: 610: 606: 602: 598: 587: 586: 582: 578: 573: 570: 566: 562: 558: 555: 552: 548: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 524: 520: 509: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 480: 476: 472: 468: 465: 464: 463: 462: 456: 454: 447: 445: 435: 424: 420: 416: 412: 408: 404: 401: 398: 397: 396: 392: 388: 384: 383: 382: 378: 374: 369: 368: 367: 366: 362: 358: 348: 344: 340: 335: 332: 328: 324: 320: 315: 311: 310: 309: 308: 305: 301: 297: 293: 291: 287: 283: 278: 276: 272: 268: 263: 262: 261: 260: 256: 252: 246: 243: 239: 235: 229: 227: 222: 218: 217: 211: 207: 191: 187: 183: 179: 178: 177: 173: 169: 164: 163: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 140: 136: 132: 128: 127: 126: 122: 118: 113: 110: 106: 105: 104: 103: 102: 101: 96: 92: 88: 83: 82: 81: 80: 77: 73: 69: 64: 60: 56: 53: 49: 48: 47: 46: 42: 38: 34: 19: 4358: 4349:Lady Madonna 4322: 4286: 4277: 4255: 4250: 4244: 4237: 4211: 4189: 4167: 4149: 4141: 4137: 4115: 4107: 4099: 4092: 4073: 4067: 4061: 4055:Melody Maker 4054: 4046: 4040: 4005: 3999: 3976: 3970: 3964: 3892: 3841: 3817: 3765: 3760: 3755: 3751: 3741: 3737: 3714: 3708: 3702: 3675:— Preceding 3672: 3649: 3626: 3590:Astral Weeks 3589: 3585: 3563: 3538: 3521: 3518: 3515: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3473: 3469: 3450: 3438: 3435: 3372: 3348: 3280:Past Masters 3279: 3272: 3196:Lady Madonna 3192: 3165: 3122:GiantSnowman 3093:GiantSnowman 3078: 3055: 3044: 3020: 3000: 2995: 2991: 2986: 2951: 2948:Melody Maker 2947: 2941: 2937:Melody Maker 2935: 2929: 2869:AstralCiaran 2805:AstralCiaran 2802: 2798: 2781: 2720: 2683: 2659: 2636: 2630: 2628: 2592: 2579:good article 2573:The article 2572: 2496: 2487:, actually.) 2484: 2434: 2426: 2381:good article 2375:The article 2374: 2328: 2264: 2260: 2241: 2189: 2074: 2050: 2006: 1955: 1931: 1898: 1881: 1857: 1836: 1826: 1824: 1811: 1804: 1761: 1755: 1747: 1736: 1715: 1688: 1684: 1647: 1575: 1542: 1531: 1527: 1475: 1400: 1393: 1376: 1345: 1342: 1316: 1304: 1276: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1242:The Observer 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1222: 1217: 1189: 1185: 1180: 1111: 1107: 1104:Astral Weeks 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1059: 1054: 1048: 1043: 1018:the Guardian 1010: 981: 960: 939:through 2013 930: 893: 889: 881: 877: 869: 865: 861: 855: 813: 809: 796: 792: 775:Let It Bleed 774: 770: 766: 762: 758: 754: 718: 662:User:Ojorojo 593: 590:Help Request 574: 571: 567: 563: 559: 556: 553: 549: 546: 515: 488: 453:open channel 452: 443: 438: 410: 353: 327:famous model 322: 247: 241: 237: 233: 230: 225: 220: 214: 209: 204: 30: 4239:Let's Dance 4196:... Enjoy! 4190:immediately 4007:voting page 3410:Doc Strange 3396:Doc Strange 3180:Ringo Starr 3172:John Lennon 2597:nominate it 2581:has passed 2534:new article 2395:nominate it 2383:has passed 2261:New Morning 2087:Rubber Soul 1648:exceptional 1555:Apple Corps 1543:possibility 1468:The Beatles 1339:Hello there 1092:Sgt. Pepper 1088:Rubber Soul 319:Allen Klein 221:Sgt. Pepper 4351:, but for 4108:single one 3991:topic bans 3523:Gerd Hanke 3436:Hi there, 3392:ANI report 3365:Isaacsorry 3351:Isaacsorry 2943:Hunky Dory 2940:review of 1924:WP:BEATLES 1784:McLaren F1 1708:Soft Touch 1497:WT:BEATLES 1396:WP:BEATLES 1318:DOOMSDAYER 1186:White Room 1080:Pet Sounds 1068:Rock Canon 870:Abbey Road 866:Sgt Pepper 864:way above 759:Pet Sounds 467:FlightTime 444:FlightTime 4280:WP:SUBCAT 4194:of course 4138:Billboard 4098:With the 4043:this post 3987:site bans 3933:MapReader 3914:MapReader 3900:MapReader 3752:McCartney 3509:and/or 3441:your edit 3297:mid 60's. 3273:imitating 3265:tessitura 3162:talk page 3051:Tom Jones 2841:talk page 2822:accepted. 2593:bold link 2575:I Me Mine 2568:I Me Mine 2516:album era 2485:Aftermath 2441:album era 2437:interview 2265:too rough 1834:already. 1741:Formula 1 1685:most kind 1600:Sibylla's 1576:Aftermath 1364:Mal Evans 1190:Chill Out 1181:Aftermath 1112:Aftermath 1072:Aftermath 1060:Aftermath 1055:Aftermath 982:Aftermath 961:Pitchfork 890:Aftermath 882:Pitchfork 878:Aftermath 755:Aftermath 411:Aftermath 323:Aftermath 242:Aftermath 226:Aftermath 210:Aftermath 4114:Yamada, 3796:either. 3699:Check-in 3689:contribs 3677:unsigned 3329:contribs 3249:contribs 3220:contribs 2784:Art Rock 2717:Ob-La-Di 2687:Ghmyrtle 2625:Question 2423:Tom Hull 1933:kingboyk 1912:kingboyk 1903:barnstar 1864:kingboyk 1839:kingboyk 1766:kingboyk 1681:kingboyk 1652:kingboyk 1623:kingboyk 1572:kingboyk 1559:kingboyk 1481:kingboyk 1437:kingboyk 1419:kingboyk 1403:kingboyk 1381:by user 1379:reverted 1329:Contribs 1281:kingboyk 1258:Time Out 1230:All Time 1218:All Time 1207:kingboyk 1194:kingboyk 1151:kingboyk 1084:Revolver 1044:omission 1026:kingboyk 1011:slightly 852:kingboyk 839:kingboyk 818:kingboyk 810:Revolver 763:Revolver 690:kingboyk 499:Tenebrae 31:In case 4146:sandbox 4014:NoACEMM 3871:Tbhotch 3869:Thanks 3559:The Who 3452:Tkbrett 3400:Logbook 3345:Insults 3143:Snowman 3114:Snowman 3084:Snowman 3062:DPL bot 2612:Moisejp 2607:Moisejp 2603:Legobot 2410:Moisejp 2405:Moisejp 2401:Legobot 2346:Hotcop2 2332:Hotcop2 2284:Moisejp 2245:Moisejp 2208:Moisejp 2193:Moisejp 2165:Moisejp 2152:Moisejp 2130:Moisejp 2113:Moisejp 2075:shorter 2069:Moisejp 2054:Moisejp 2015:Israell 1807:The KLF 1524:The KLF 1513:The Orb 1509:The KLF 1188:and/or 601:Muso805 575:Peace 4317:HotCat 4245:Record 4062:Sounds 4057:review 4048:Lodger 3439:After 3315:C.Syde 3235:C.Syde 3206:C.Syde 3198:" or " 2587:; see 2520:isento 2464:isento 2445:isento 2389:; see 1817:cquote 1801:cquote 1505:WP:KLF 1236:, the 1129:isento 1040:Isento 989:isento 966:isento 947:isento 858:...?! 833:Isento 748:isento 731:isento 400:Isento 387:isento 357:isento 313:whole. 296:isento 282:isento 267:isento 206:Isento 182:isento 153:isento 147:, and 131:isento 109:Isento 87:isento 52:Isento 37:isento 4359:ResPM 4323:ResPM 4287:ResPM 4257:zmbro 4213:zmbro 4169:zmbro 4151:zmbro 4075:zmbro 3860:hotch 3819:zmbro 3734:zmbro 3716:zmbro 3707:" or 3650:Hey, 3474:about 3140:Giant 3111:Giant 3081:Giant 3060:.) -- 3022:zmbro 2971:Zmbro 2953:zmbro 2892:] (]) 2656:zmbro 2638:zmbro 2562:Your 2497:Creem 2364:Your 2093:...). 1762:magic 1737:could 1476:might 1313:. --- 1100:Exile 931:Uncut 16:< 4338:talk 4334:JG66 4307:talk 4303:JG66 4263:talk 4248:and 4219:talk 4202:talk 4198:JG66 4175:talk 4157:talk 4128:talk 4124:JG66 4081:talk 4065:and 4024:talk 3977:The 3937:talk 3922:talk 3918:JG66 3904:talk 3896:HERE 3879:talk 3875:JG66 3853:(CC) 3825:talk 3802:talk 3798:JG66 3788:and 3761:said 3742:ATMP 3738:back 3732:Hey 3722:talk 3685:talk 3660:talk 3656:JG66 3639:talk 3602:talk 3598:JG66 3571:talk 3548:talk 3544:JG66 3527:talk 3482:talk 3478:JG66 3418:talk 3414:JG66 3382:talk 3378:JG66 3355:talk 3323:talk 3288:talk 3284:JG66 3243:talk 3214:talk 3130:talk 3126:JG66 3101:talk 3097:JG66 3066:talk 3028:talk 3011:talk 3007:JG66 2994:and 2959:talk 2916:talk 2912:JG66 2896:talk 2873:talk 2849:talk 2831:talk 2809:talk 2766:talk 2747:talk 2743:JG66 2731:talk 2723:this 2707:talk 2703:JG66 2691:talk 2670:talk 2666:JG66 2654:Hey 2644:talk 2616:talk 2546:talk 2542:JG66 2524:talk 2506:talk 2502:JG66 2468:talk 2449:talk 2414:talk 2354:talk 2350:JG66 2336:talk 2311:talk 2307:JG66 2303:Them 2288:talk 2273:talk 2269:JG66 2249:talk 2233:talk 2229:JG66 2197:talk 2173:talk 2169:JG66 2156:talk 2138:talk 2134:JG66 2117:talk 2103:talk 2099:JG66 2058:talk 2037:talk 2033:JG66 2019:talk 1980:talk 1976:JG66 1962:talk 1941:talk 1937:JG66 1916:talk 1899:The 1868:talk 1843:talk 1827:like 1770:talk 1754:VHS 1748:have 1724:talk 1720:JG66 1706:", " 1702:", " 1656:talk 1627:talk 1608:talk 1604:JG66 1585:talk 1581:JG66 1563:talk 1485:talk 1453:talk 1449:JG66 1423:talk 1407:talk 1384:ILIL 1325:Talk 1285:talk 1267:talk 1263:JG66 1250:Mojo 1198:talk 1155:talk 1141:talk 1137:JG66 1120:talk 1116:JG66 1030:talk 993:talk 970:talk 951:talk 904:talk 900:JG66 868:and 843:talk 822:talk 783:talk 779:JG66 765:and 735:talk 694:talk 688:. -- 670:talk 652:talk 638:talk 634:JG66 630:here 620:talk 616:JG66 605:talk 581:talk 538:talk 534:JG66 523:talk 503:talk 475:talk 471:JG66 419:talk 415:JG66 391:talk 377:talk 373:JG66 361:talk 343:talk 339:JG66 300:talk 286:talk 271:talk 255:talk 251:JG66 234:sang 186:talk 172:talk 168:JG66 157:talk 135:talk 121:talk 117:JG66 91:talk 72:talk 68:JG66 41:talk 4251:NME 4186:zim 4184:OK 4142:any 3756:Ram 3710:Ram 3635:IWI 3580:Hi 3513:). 3458:(✉) 3408:Hi 3373:are 3267:(!) 3075:ANI 3053:. 2969:Hi 2610:-- 2408:-- 2206:Hi 2067:Ah 2047:OBS 1689:and 1435:Hi 1370:or 1366:, 1362:, 1320:520 1305:At 1238:NME 812:or 800:FA: 107:Hi 50:Hi 4340:) 4309:) 4242:: 4204:) 4192:, 4130:) 4093:MM 4026:) 4016:}} 4012:{{ 3989:, 3939:) 3924:) 3906:) 3881:) 3857:Tb 3804:) 3784:, 3691:) 3687:• 3662:) 3641:) 3604:) 3573:) 3550:) 3529:) 3484:) 3470:to 3420:) 3384:) 3357:) 3326:| 3290:) 3246:| 3217:| 3132:) 3103:) 3068:) 3013:) 2918:) 2898:) 2875:) 2851:) 2833:) 2811:) 2796:. 2768:) 2749:) 2733:) 2709:) 2693:) 2672:) 2618:) 2564:GA 2548:) 2526:) 2508:) 2470:) 2462:. 2451:) 2416:) 2366:GA 2356:) 2338:) 2313:) 2290:) 2275:) 2251:) 2235:) 2199:) 2175:) 2158:) 2140:) 2119:) 2105:) 2089:, 2085:, 2081:, 2060:) 2039:) 2021:) 1982:) 1964:) 1943:) 1926:) 1918:) 1910:-- 1870:) 1845:) 1820:}} 1814:{{ 1772:) 1726:) 1687:) 1658:) 1629:) 1610:) 1587:) 1565:) 1515:). 1487:) 1471:}} 1465:{{ 1455:) 1425:) 1417:-- 1409:) 1398:. 1391:. 1358:, 1287:) 1269:) 1256:, 1248:, 1244:, 1240:, 1200:) 1157:) 1143:) 1122:) 1102:, 1098:, 1090:, 1086:, 1082:, 1078:, 1032:) 995:) 972:) 953:) 906:) 845:) 824:) 785:) 773:, 761:, 737:) 696:) 672:) 654:) 640:) 632:. 622:) 607:) 583:) 577:WB 540:) 525:) 519:WB 505:) 477:) 421:) 393:) 379:) 363:) 345:) 302:) 288:) 273:) 257:) 188:) 174:) 159:) 151:. 137:) 123:) 93:) 74:) 43:) 4336:( 4305:( 4265:) 4261:( 4221:) 4217:( 4200:( 4177:) 4173:( 4159:) 4155:( 4126:( 4083:) 4079:( 4022:( 3935:( 3920:( 3902:( 3877:( 3827:) 3823:( 3800:( 3724:) 3720:( 3683:( 3658:( 3637:( 3600:( 3569:( 3546:( 3525:( 3480:( 3416:( 3380:( 3353:( 3332:) 3320:( 3286:( 3252:) 3240:( 3223:) 3211:( 3194:" 3128:( 3099:( 3064:( 3056:( 3030:) 3026:( 3009:( 2981:. 2961:) 2957:( 2914:( 2894:( 2871:( 2864:: 2860:@ 2847:( 2829:( 2807:( 2764:( 2745:( 2729:( 2705:( 2689:( 2668:( 2646:) 2642:( 2614:( 2544:( 2522:( 2504:( 2466:( 2447:( 2412:( 2352:( 2334:( 2309:( 2286:( 2271:( 2247:( 2231:( 2195:( 2171:( 2154:( 2136:( 2115:( 2101:( 2056:( 2035:( 2017:( 1978:( 1960:( 1939:( 1914:( 1866:( 1841:( 1768:( 1722:( 1654:( 1625:( 1606:( 1583:( 1561:( 1483:( 1451:( 1421:( 1405:( 1331:) 1327:| 1323:( 1283:( 1265:( 1246:Q 1226:' 1196:( 1153:( 1139:( 1118:( 1028:( 991:( 985:' 968:( 949:( 902:( 841:( 835:: 831:@ 820:( 781:( 733:( 692:( 668:( 650:( 636:( 618:( 603:( 579:( 536:( 521:( 501:( 473:( 457:) 449:( 417:( 389:( 375:( 359:( 341:( 298:( 284:( 269:( 253:( 184:( 170:( 155:( 133:( 119:( 89:( 70:( 39:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index