User talk:Rothorpe/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thank you for improving! I wonder about the paragraph in the lead mentioning details about the music as rather not helpful at that point. I miss a bit more on Agnus Dei in the article. I could live happily without "The piece can be heard in many TV shows and movies", quite an anti-climax after "full of pathos and cathartic passion", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe the TV shows are cathartic passion-challenged. Anyway, I just dropped in on the article: do what you wish! Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I did the same and wrote Agnus Dei (Barber), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good! Stand by while I copyedit it savagely... Rothorpe (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	copyediting
	Thank you for your great copyediting, spontaneous, thorough, engaged, evaluating alternatives, to the point, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Passion:

He was despised - Agnus Dei to appear on the Main page 7 April (but already on my user) --Gerda Arendt (talk

) 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you. Rothorpe (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the mixup on the Allmusic page at [1]. I checked it a couple of times over a period of 10 minutes, it was just a blank bio. Now I see it is working, sort of. At least on my end, it loads, then I reload and it's blank, rinse and repeat. I'm guessing a temporary problem on their website, but the page obviously exists and is a good bio. I've never had their site do that before. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. The Internet can be a weird place. Rothorpe (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point! garik (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks---you're very gracious. Rothorpe (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

I see you have kindly closed one of my innumerable subordinate clauses that I opened with a comma and then forgot to close. (In the Hubert Parry article in this case.) I was very properly ticked off in the 1960s by my schoolmasters for this dereliction and Heaven save me I'm still at it fifty years later. Thank you for the amendment! Tim riley (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure---though you are not to blame. I was inspired to do some detective work and that sentence about The Square (or the Square?) was added by a now-blocked user in August 2006. Thanks, anyway! Rothorpe (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you that, in my experience, The Strand has the definite article and have never met anyone in real life who maintains otherwise. However, frankly to my astonishment, there is a view asserted on the talk pages that the converse view is correct, that there should be no article. It may be worthwhile, if possibly rather tedious, to check the talk pages and their archives regarding the matter. The sum of which is that there is a consensus that there be no article in the initial mention of the street name, and thereafter the definite article in all mentions. By all means pitch in on the debate, but it's as well to know the can of worms you are opening. Best, Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the details. As you can see, I've jumped into the can! Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well best of luck with that. I'd taken the view that the considerable time spent arguing over the matter by the users involved might be better spent otherwise and a truce, effectively, was a compromise I could live with, but by all means get wrestling with those worms!

Regarding the talkback template, not sure why that version displays like that but you could try e.g.: {{Talkback | Rothorpe| The/Strand | ts = ~~~~~}}. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your encouragement. Now I'll see about that talkback... Rothorpe (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe, hope your well. Having been bitten by the FAC bug with Holloway, I am now keen to list Leno in GAC and depending on the comments recieved, FAC. As a result I would be grateful for your comments in this Peer Review It would be great if you could drop in. Best regards -- Cassianto (talk)

FAC? GAC? Whatever they are, I'll certainly have a look tomorrow. Rothorpe (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

More than likely FAC. That is very much appreciated! -- Cassianto (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Very nice article. Good luck with the thingy. Rothorpe (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. The edits look spot on ! Many thanks as always. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong in regards to

Plural verbs are normal for football clubs. Look through the article and you'll find instances of 'Rangers were...' and even 'the club were...' Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"Rangers were" is a different matter if it means the team. The lead is talking about the club. The club is a singular, inanimate object. We are not talking about transient individuals who make up the club at this point. See also

A.C. Milan, Liverpool F.C., FC Bayern Munich

... etc... etc..

You can see just how wrong using "are" and "who" is simply by breaking it down;

• This club are a football club.
• The club are a club who plays in the Scottish Premier League.

Doesn't read well, does it? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And does your first example, beginning "Arsenal Football Club is an English professional football club based in Holloway, London, who currently play in the Premier League" read well?

I'd say that the singular, while not wrong---it is obviously grammatically correct---is unidiomatic. Your distinction between the club and the team is a fine one that most football fans don't care to make. Rothorpe (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart for the fans of Arsenal, Celtic, Barcelona, Man U... ? Not that it matters, Wikipedia is not a fanzine. In order to be precise and clear to all readers of English, Wikipedia is written to formal grammar, not idioms.

I'll go over and fix that "who" in Arsenal's. Thanks for pointing it out. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And what about "the club were"? Rothorpe (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

As explained above, it all depends on the context, but "the club were" is most probably incorrect. If it doesn't specifically say "club", and only the name, then it often means the team. So "the team were" is fine, because it is more about a collective of team members. You are correct in that often it is a fine line that may be a matter of taste, but I think in the lead of a club article it's pretty obvious that it's the club as a singular entity that is being described. Not any one particular team of individuals. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe, while peer reviewing

Well, thanks very much. I've been looking through it and so far have found nothing to change, which does not surprise me at all... Rothorpe (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, some of that I really should have fixed before. I've had a few people editing the page lately, so that makes it hard to spot every change. I'm pretty happy with the way it has turned out though, it's actually pretty comprehensive of the coverage since he is such an obscure figure. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, another nice one. Good luck with the FA. Rothorpe (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Exok objects to the closure of the discussion about whether to split Jeremy Bamber into two articles — one about the murders and one a biography. He has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but it would be appreciated if everyone who commented at the BLPN here or on the talk page could offer their opinion again at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber#Proposal_to_split_this_article_into_a_murders_article_and_a_biography. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

		Ukraine Barnstar
		I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for copy editing Family of Yulia Tymoshenko! Editors who perform these tasks should be more appreciated in Wikipedia I do believe! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an honour. Delighted to help. Thanks very much! Rothorpe (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe, hope things are going well with you. I'm wondering if you would be willing to help with a copyedit of Ahalya? It was unsuccessful in its most recent FAC and has just undergone a significant peer review. The article's creator asked me to help out, so in addition to going over the article myself I thought I'd mention it to a couple skilled copyeditors I knew as well. It is a kind of long article, so if you don't have time/interest enough to go over the whole thing doing a section or too that would still be much appreciated. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be happy to look at that. Thanks! Regards, Rothorpe (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for your willingness to help. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. If there are any problems, please post on Talk:Ahalya. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, copyedit done. Interesting article: good luck with it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help, your changes look good. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure. Rothorpe (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just to let you know, the article Amrullah Saleh is now a GA. Thank you for your thorough copy edit which helped the article to reach the status!! I think you can put on a star on your profile. :) JCAla (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reason, for instance wording in a manual of style, that you feel that brackets should not be italicized? I realize that they are not a part of the title. How do you know that they should not be italicized? (At Eric Dolphy I made this edit and then you made this edit.) Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I should have checked first. Sorry. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Roy Clarke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ronald Fraser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with the TIGHAR history before adding to the Earhart disappearance saga. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC).

The article on Dan Leno has been nominated for Featured Article consideration here. Since you participated in the Peer Review of the article, I thought you might like to comment there, and we would welcome your comments, if you have time. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Has he been "playing banjo, mandolin, and baritone ukulele onstage in the hit Broadway show Chicago at the Ambassador Theatre" all of the past three years? (See my comment at Talk:Jay_Berliner.) I was thinking of doing an wp-eo piece on him (based largely on wp-en), and since "PJANB" who added the information doesn't have an active Talk page I thought I'd run this by you. --Haruo (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea, so I put in an 'as of'. Good luck with the translations, I'll be interested to see them. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still haven't done Berliner, but I just did an Esperanto article based mostly on your Back-chaining: Retroĉena_instruado. Substituted a couple of Esperanto examples for some of your English. Do you have sources for the unsourced "English" section of the article? --Haruo (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Just done a few Esperanto edits, that was fun! As for the English version, I haven't touched it since I created it in 2007, and it's come a long way since then, so, sorry, no sources. Rothorpe (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why I went to lower case there. I thought I'd cut-and-pasted that part. Anyhow, thanks. --Haruo (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, "parolaj" is correct. It's an adjective corresponding to the attributive English usage of "speech": "instruado de parolaj lingvolertoj" = "teaching of speech languageskills". "Parolantoj" means "speakers", literally "those speaking", a substantival present participial form. --Haruo (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I took Teach Yourself Esperanto out of the lending library many years ago, and that's about it. On to the next... Rothorpe (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at your other contributions in the Esperanto Wikipedia, Specialaĵo:Kontribuoj/Rothorpe, and made one reversion. You "corrected" «Arianna HUFFINGTON» to «Arianna Huffington». The standard protocol in the Esperanto Wikipedia calls for the initial occurrence of a person's name in the article about them to have the surname in all caps. "George WASHINGTON", for example. This is done to avoid ambiguity, confusion, or misinterpretation in cases like Hungarian or East Asian names where the surname comes first, or in the case of complex Hispanic surnames where the main name is not obvious to non-Hispanophones (and perhaps not even to all of them), or in the case of British names like "Ralph VAUGHAN WILLIAMS" where an American might be strongly inclined to assume "Ralph Vaughan WILLIAMS". So I reverted "Huffington" to "HUFFINGTON". --Haruo (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, of course, my explanation is Western-biased. The convention of all-caps "last" names also serves to let those whose native inclination is to assume (as one does in Hungarian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and other languages) that the first element in a name is the surname. --Haruo (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Surname in caps in eo wiki. Right you are! RoTHORPE (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see this comment. Best wishes, Gidip (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

	Ahalya says Thanks
	Thanks for helping the article improve to FA standards by your copyedit ! --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure, thanks. Rothorpe (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rothorpe. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm}} template.— Kenmusprof (talk

) 14:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Kenmusprof (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. It seemed that whole chunks were being copied from other sites verbatim. But if that is not the case, please continue. Rothorpe (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The student was likely writing in Word first, then pasting blocks in from that document. --Kenmusprof (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The slanting inverted commas are proof! Rothorpe (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for your continuous copyedits to Murder of Selena. It is really appreciated! Warm wishes, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this article. The article is in the process of being knocked into shape and your continued vigilance would be most welcome.  Tigerboy1966  19:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and shall certainly keep watching. Thanks for the note! Rothorpe (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering your vocal deprivation no decent person would have giggled at your edit summary "piling on woe", but I'm afraid I did. Forgive! Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgiven---indeed, thanks for reading my page. Yes, at least Delius was able to bark his orders at Fenby. Fortunately I've still got the eyes and limbs, just about. Rothorpe (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've added a reference link. Jisnu (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to incorporate the newspaper cover photograph of Greig's groveling that is in the article? I ask because I do not yet fully understand the copyright rules. It would obviously make a great addition to the article. Jisnu (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly would; alas I know no more than you about these things. Rothorpe (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe, I recall that you've helped me with a couple articles in the past, I was wondering if you'd have time/be interested in helping with a copyedit or peer review of Clarence 13X? He was a friend of Malcolm X who founded an unconventional New Religious Movement in inner-city New York. Hopefully, the article's in Ok shape at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• P.S. The last article you helped me with is a FA now, thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. Yes, I'll certainly have a look at that. Rothorpe (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your willingness to help! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delighted to do so. I made a few minor changes. Very interesting article. Cheers, Rothorpe (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated Hizb El Watan (Libya) for deletion because of the duplicity (see

Sorry, I missed this somehow. I'm not sure I have an opinion on the matter, however. Rothorpe (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rothorpe. I would really value your comments here as yesterday Leno recieved a number of edits by the community as a result of appearing on the main page. These changes are now up for a discussion with a view of weeding out the good ones from the not so good ones. Hope to see you there! -- Cassianto^Talk 07:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'll have a look right now. Rothorpe (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, lead with 'leading'. Rothorpe (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

That is much appreciated. Thanks for your input as always! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

What a pleasure to run across you again in the Dan Leno article! I qualify for my Fowler Badge for Conspicuous Pedantry, but I do wonder about "beg the question". It's such a hopeless term as a translation of petitio principii that I think it has forfeited its right to exclusive use in that context. The WP article has it right: the correct English term would be "assuming the initial point", and I propose to go round begging questions when something invites/demands/suggests or begs them. (I'm in favour of splitting infinitives too, though somehow I find I am reluctant to actually do so.) Kindest regards, Tim riley (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure's mine; I hadn't noticed you chez Leno. I never used 'beg the question' in any context, ugly and unintuitive, so I'm inclined to moan when I see it---pointlessly, as it is always used nowadays in the 'new' sense; 'raise' or 'prompt' are my choices there. (And I see the WP article concludes by recommending not to use the phrase at all, quite!) As for split infinitives, few people seem to object nowadays, and I didn't notice yours at first. All the very best, Rothorpe (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that fix. I will be taking this to FLC in the next few days to see how it fares. Feel free to pop in and offer any criticisms comments or advice. First impressions? -- Cassianto^Talk 23:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. As for the title, though I rather like 'discography', it's true that's only part of it. So I'd go for 'Dan Leno songs', or 'List of...' Rothorpe (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes both are appealing. I have posted an advice request on a FL delegate's (The Rambling Man's) talk page re the correct title to use so hope to hear back soon. Incidentally, that great clown (and Leno's inspiration) Joseph Grimaldi, will be completed soon. It's been in here from scratch so it's not live yet, but it will be in a week when I have completed the last section. I envisage a lot of heavy copy edits, the odd punct error, typo etc, but it will be a complete and full account. Once it's live, I intend to make this my third FA and would really value your attention if it's of interest to you. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you have expanded Grimaldi hugely. I could make a couple of copyedits on your page, or shall I wait? Rothorpe (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you could give it a cursory going over that would be great. Just for grammar, punct, prose etc. Not so much content yet as that's still ongoing. Also the lede is not finished as I'm going to use bits from the uncompleted section for that. Section's marked  Done are completed from my end. Tim has also promised to go through it more extensively before it goes live, but your early copy edit's would be much appreciated here. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do. Rothorpe (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to copy edit Grimaldi. Your fixes make embarrassing reading for me, but I wouldn't be without them! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure, no need to be embarrassed, good article... Rothorpe (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You were referred to me by User:Mark Arsten as someone who certainly has the skills needed, and who may be willing to help out with some prose and punctuation issues at Paul McCartney, which is also currently at FAC. Thanks, hope this isn't a bother. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No trouble at all, will have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean to put the Americanised "throughs" back in? Britmax (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, when anyone says "through Friday" I find myself thinking "through Friday until when?" Britmax (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for your efforts Rothorpe, the article is much improved due to your edits! ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Pleasure. I haven't finished looking through it all yet. Rothorpe (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again, great work, I really appreciate the help. There are so many errors I cannot see, so thanks. Also, if you can find the time, I've added a significant amount of detail to the Beatles section of the article, at the request of an FAC reviewer. If you can get a chance, I'm sure I've introduced some errors there that need to be fixed. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I still have a bit more to read on the first run-through, then I'll look at your new stuff. It stays on my watchlist until all activity quietens down. Thanks for the appreciation! Rothorpe (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that after you find the time to finish looking over the article, you also find time to !vote, however way that may be. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just had another, belated look at the FAC page---amazing, staying up all night, etc. etc. Well, young people have a lot of energy. I only recently found out, from WP, that the Beatles' final split happened right on my 20th birthday. OK, I have a few seconds available as it happens... Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that young, to be honest, just dedicated to the project. My eyes are going, so it takes me a little longer than some, but the effort is well worth it. Thanks again for all your help! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, it's a shoulder that slows me down... Anyway, here's a question: who did the replacing of Best with Starr? At first it seems to be Epstein, but 'releasing Love Me Do' follows. Rothorpe (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I've fixed that. Rothorpe (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good now, much clearer, thanks! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for copy-editing my copy edit. --John (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Slip of the pen. You caught some juicy ones there. Rothorpe (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again for all your help Rothorpe. I have ordered copies of the MLA and Chicago MoS as well as the Oxford guide to British English so that I will be more empowered to fix these issues myself, and I will hopefully require less help at my next FAC. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I look forward to seeing that. Happy reading! Rothorpe (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious. At this point, what is preventing your support? If you would just tell me what they are, I am sure I could fix whatever issues you have with the article. Prose? Punctuation? Length? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, pure absentmindedness! Will do it now. Rothorpe (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much, and while I hate to nag, without a rationale for support your !vote may not be counted by the delegates. So if you wouldn't mind giving a brief rationale for your !vote I would appreciate it, thanks for all your help! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How very silly. Will put 'it's an excellent article', that should do it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Thanks for your efforts! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the note. Let's hope we can finish this off once and for all. If the consensus is changed, I shall not be looking at any more pop music articles here.

I've been edit-conflicted, so I'll say it here and then paste: The white album is The Beatles by the Beatles. Very few publications use upper case for the 'the' that precedes/begins the name of many bands, meaning that the ones that do look decidedly amateurish. Rothorpe (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets set this straight once and for ALL! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ready for more, eh? Have you been With the Beatles recently? Rothorpe (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! In Derek Taylor's first liner notes for the band (Beatles For Sale), he uses "the" throughout. Which brings me to the question, why is it Beatles For Sale and not The Beatles For Sale, if "The" is an indispensable part of their trademark? With the right people, and the proper rationale, I think we can turn the tide. We do not count votes here, so the numerical advantage of the "The" crowd should not matter much if/when this gets pushed that far, since their rationale is ofetn "it just looks weird to me" or "it's just not right". Anyway, I am here to help, so lets fix this! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not about trademarks, that's another red herring. It's about English language, pure and simple. The hard thing to get across is how, while 'the' is part of the name (unlike, say, with Wings) it drops the capital in running prose. Still, progress is being made. I admire your determination! Yes, 'looks weird to me' is not the best of arguments, and it's often the best they can offer.

Beatles for sale, like "apples for sale", I always thought. Rothorpe (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Truth. Lets win this one once and for all! We have grammar on our side, and thus our rationale will win out. Also, I have ordered about five of the best style guides, so hopefully they will prove helpful in this regard. Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. But before you get into the guides, please go to With the Beatles, and support my comment. So far it's only received a LOL... Rothorpe (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Done! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Not to mention another thousand or so Beatles articles. It's not so bad for other groups, though, as far as I can tell. Rothorpe (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks Rothorpe! You assisted in various ways on the Paul McCartney FAC. Thank you! Without your help and support McCartney would not be a FA today! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and congratulations, you certainly deserve yours. Rothorpe (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.125.65 (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be watching. Rothorpe (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll add my name. Nice work on the style guides, by the way. Rothorpe (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure add your name there if you want, the more the merrier. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, will do. Rothorpe (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 July 2012.