Talk:Paul McCartney

Template:Releaseversion

The Beatles

Why is their nothing about the Beatles on this page? I understand that they have their own page but The Beatles were his launching pad and his most famous band.--72.16.114.224 23:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope if this page is ever archived that we can leave this comment standing - it still cracks me up. Tvoz |talk 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

LOLLOLLOL! I'd missed this one! Deffo-should be left standin in BOLD Forever! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Audio samples

I see in the to-do list that Wings and solo samples are needed. I could help with it. I recently uploaded samples of Maybe I'm Amazed and This One (they are in the albums articles). I am perfectly aware of that non-free media can't be abused, and I can't upload as many of them as I feel like, that's why I need suggestions about which else should be added and how many. Which could illustrate Paul's music career the best? For instance, to illustrate early Wings period, should it be Mary Had a Little lamb, Hi Hi Hi, C moon, Wild Life or ...? --Betty kerner (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking you should probably include songs from his greatest hits albums. Try "Hi Hi Hi", "C Moon", "My Love"... you could do "Flaming Pie", "Driving Rain", "Ever Present Past", "Dance Tonight"... try some of the title songs from albums too (though "EPP" and "DT" aren't title tracks, MAF doesn't have one).GuitarWeeps (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

while/whilst

I've replaced "whilst" with "while" and been reverted. I thought I'd explain here. "Whilst" is considered archaic in American English. I understand and accept that it is apparently not considered archaic in British English.

However, "while" is correct in both American English and British English. It seems to me that, given a choice between a usage that is not grating to readers on either side of the Atlantic, and a usage that is grating to readers on one side, the choice that is non-grating to both should be preferred. This is what I tried to sum up in my pithy comment on the edit: Preferring "while" to "whilst"; "whilst" is archaic to US readers, but "while" is appropriate under both US and British English.

The revert commented only whilst last is quite ok in british english and mos resists such changes. I assume the MOS the reverter is referring to is WP:ENGVAR. I don't think that applies here. It would certainly apply if, for example, I was to change "colour" to "color." In British English, "colour" is correct and "color" is viewed as an Americanism. I myself have reverted such changes.

But the choice here is not between getting it wrong either in the US or UK; it's about getting a wording that works in both regions.

As a side note, I note that the style guides for two UK publications, the Times [1] ("while (not whilst)") and the Guardian [2] ("while/not whilst") prefer "while" to "whilst", so there's no question that "while" is acceptable in the UK, and at least in certain contexts, preferred. Similarly, my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage says "while (or less commonly whilst)".

Given this, I propose to change back to "while," and will do so unless someone presents a compelling case for retaining "whilst." TJRC (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that, there are hundreds of thousands of articles written in an American English dialect with usage that is considered obscure or indeed archaic to people outside of the US. There is no reason to start an edit war here. Jooler (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, that's a good reason to edit those articles to correct them. It is not a good reason to refrain from fixing it in other articles. I agree on avoiding the edit war; that's why, rather than reverting my revert, I took it to the talk page. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the suggestion that a change is a "fix" where we differ. "whilst" is perfectly acceptable in British English. The subject of this article is a British subject. MOS dictates that such changes as you propose are to be avoided. The same applies to those hundreds of thousands of American articles. Or do you propose that I and a legion of other British English speakers go about replacing the word "sidewalk" with "footpath" all over the place. Jooler (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst he was waiting, and while he was in Jail.--andreasegde (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask this. What's the name of the language? Is it "American?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.163.138.12 (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from not signing in, user 139.163.138.12 doesn't know that quotation marks are supposed to be at the beginning and at the end. "American??, for example. No, it's not American, it's English, you twerp, as The Beatles all learned how to speak, unlike you, buddy.--andreasegde (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultraviolet scissor flame

Ultraviolet scissor flame seems to be intent on chopping and hacking anything in his path, without any thought or care about the article. He started the Paul McCartney (solo) page, but did not add The Beatles template or more than one category. It has made a confused mess of the main page, as the 2000s are also on the solo page, but separated from the 1980s and 90s on this page by Classical music.

This user only attacks McCartney's articles and not the other Beatle-related articles, which is probably because of McCartney's Bond connection. (The user is deeply interested in all things Bond, BTW.) Plus: reverting the deletion of a McCartney impersonator photo (which obviously doesn't belong here) means only one thing: this user should be regarded as a vandal, and should be constantly reverted before he (as staed on his own page) does more damage to this GA-rated article.--andreasegde (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. You're banning Ultra from this topic for...not being sufficiently interested in non-Bond articles? Ultra should have been more careful, but this looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. If you really feel that Ultra's edits should be "constantly reverted", deal with it properly - but it doesn't look warranted to me, asking him to have a chat and reach a consensus first would be better. Bazzargh (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has constantly hacked away at this article for months (resulting in one member of this Beatles' project leaving because of those actions, after we had all given a great deal of time to it) and has made no effort at all to standardise the article he created (Paul McCartney (solo)) which is a jumble, and will have to be rearranged, as will this article. The user is not interested in a 'chat', he just wants to cut this McCartney article to pieces, and doesn't care how. The mere fact of putting a (previously deleted) McCartney impersonator photo back in the "Business" section again shows his lack of caring. IMO, it was meant as an attack against McCartney personally. --andreasegde (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultraviolet scissor flame has just done it AGAIN, by adding more to the "Paul is Dead" section, but insisting this article is too long. The user obviously doesn't read this talk page, because the user is a vandal, (wants to believe that McCartney is dead) and doesn't give a faeces.--andreasegde (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, WP:NPA. If you think there is a problem, use due process. Gather diffs and get an opinion on WP:RFCC, WP:WQA or WP:ANI - insults help neither the article nor your case. Bazzargh (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin. It's an admin's job.--andreasegde (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Imho, he should be reported to admins (perhaps to those involved in Wikiproject Beatles, because they might be a bit more interested) or further discussed on Wikiproject Beatles. --Betty kerner (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you Betty kerner, but Ultraviolet scissor flame is very clever, by seeming to be a concerned editor, and does not reply to accusations (not replying in any way at all) but continues to slowly destroy what a lot of people have worked on. It's a clever strategy, albeit very destructive. It's a new form of vandal...--andreasegde (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S., Ultraviolet scissor flame is not a member of The Beatles' project, and has not contributed in any way to other articles about The Beatles. It seems he has an axe to grind because McCartney contributed to a Bond movie soundtrack (which the vandal user is very heavily interested in).--andreasegde (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

He changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Ultraviolet scissor flame, he has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker [Phadkay]. He also failed spectacularly when he tried to be a Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay. He is also a master sock puppeteer, Paerduug, [3] and then when he realised he had given himself away, he tried to cover it up [4] 81.130.223.198 (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Everton

I know there are Everton fans in the world, and I know some of them might not like this comment, but it seems to me that being an Everton fan is not really a big part of Paul's lifestyle. Yet the fact of his fanhood (and I do not dispute it as fact) is very prominent in the "Lifestyle" section. I removed it, thinking some overeager Everton fan had put it in without reading wp:notability, and for my trouble I got a really nasty note in my talkpage from User:Andreasegde. He/she put it back in the article, but I have to admit that it still strikes me as out of place. Does anyone else here have an opinion? maxsch (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your style of editing is disruptive, weird and violative of policies/rules of Wiki, you need to take a break. Please respect User:Andreasegde, since unlike myself who is a jobless, infamous Filipino dwarf judge who only learned computer on April 2006, that user needs a lot of kindness. You had continuously edited my edits and I took pains to correct your mess. We are devoting precious times here. For me, I use Wikipedia Psalm 109/73 midnights to convince you to study more the policies of Wikipedia. You apologized to my adopting parent, but you be a penitent. Please be guided accordingly. --Florentino floro (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would support the removal of this trivial piece of information from the article. I think Paul's fanhood of Everton is hardly notable, unless he was the #1 ticket holder or something of similar notability. Five Years 07:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go; users who have absolutely no conception of what football means to people in the UK (which is where McCartney still lives). I could have put in the comment by Linda McCartney to a journalist saying that McCartney is an Everton fan, but these days (as she said) "it's all Liverpool, Liverpool" (Liverpool football club). Why would she say that about her husband if it wasn't notable?

This is the link: McCartney told Citytalk's Phil and Kim Breakfast Show: "It is always lovely for me to go back to Liverpool and play for the home crowd. [A football term] I am looking forward to that, it should be cool, even though I am an Everton fan officially - when it comes to the crunch, my Dad was born in Everton." This links people with the place they were born with the club they suppoprt. Maybe McCartney being born in Everton, Liverpool, is not notable enough? Put the scissors away, and start doing something worthwhile, like actually writing articles.--andreasegde (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down your language. I took a question I had about content in the article, and I put it here on the talkpage. There is nothing wrong with that kind of behaviour. No one is questioning the importance of football in British society. I am only questioning its importance in Paul's life/lifestyle. If the consensus opinion is that it is an important part of his lifestyle, I will not protest. But don't question my right to ask the question. maxsch (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Is there any actual evidence that McCartney was of Irish origin? Short of reliable sources, we will need to trim a category from this article. --John (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)