Hello! Jburlinson, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sarah (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I messed up the template that leaves the nifty notice like the one right above this, sorry. But I have replied to your question and believe I can help you. Check there and I'll get back to you here eventually.

Following up -- we can definitely get the book in. I can write it for you in a few days or help you write it. I'd be happy to do it either way. For the author, I'm not so sure. I've only been doing this since March, and I've never worked with establishing notability for an author before. The problem is, it may require a little patience on your part, and I know that can be frustrating! But I'll read up and we'll keep asking around. I suspect we can do it, but I don't want to promise what I can't deliver.

I am going out tomorrow with my daughter, so it will be late before I can get back to you. Sorry about that. Click on "talk" after Tlqk56 below, and it will take you to my talk page. Click the tab at the top that says New Section and leave me a message. I'll check it when I get back. In the meantime, if you can get copies of obituaries or book reviews from major papers, that would help. (I have reviews from Publisher's Weekly, Children's Literature Journal, and School Library Journal already.) I know the New York Times reviewed it, but my laptop's being wonky these days and I can't get at it. I also can't get School Library Journal or children's lit.com. Can you? Tlqk56 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. Maybe the book would make for a better article than the author, with some of the author information included as part of the book article. I'll wait for your guidance -- I'm such a total newbie I don't even think I qualify for full newbie status. Is there a category of "probationary newbie"? Thanks for your help.Jburlinson (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! I have a question for you. Is there sufficient overlap between Indian route (United States) and Indian Reservation Roads Program to warrant a merger? The "Historical usage" in the former article seems to be dealing with a different concept while the rest of the two articles seems to overlap a lot. Basically from my perspective, there should be one article that deals with the concept of a modern highway marked with the arrowhead marker and managed as some sort of cohesive program. Am I seeing overlap where none exists? Imzadi 1979 → 01:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A merger sounds like a good idea to me. Indian routes could be considered pretty much a subset of the IRR -- although there is enough of a distinction between an Indian route and a BIA road to warrant an explanation. The entire article could also be expanded to discuss some other aspects of the system, such as terrain, road conditions, etc. I added the "historical usage" section just as clarification, since the phrase "Indian route" is often used in the literature to refer to Indian trails/paths. There are already some good articles on some of these on Wikipedia, such as Mohawk Trail, Great Trail, Pinta Trail (Texas) etc.

I'll work on a merger -- would that be OK? I probably won't e able to spend any time with it until next week. Would that work? Thanks for your message.Jburlinson (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No deadline, just was a thought of mine. Michigan (my area of specialty) has Saginaw Trail and Mackinac Trail, and I try to reference when modern highways follow the old trails, like U.S. Route 16 in Michigan and the Grand River Trail/Grand River Road, U.S. Route 2 in Michigan and M-35 (Michigan highway) that follow the Sault–Green Bay Trail.

As a "system article" though, I'm see the possibility of something like Interstate Highway System, United States Numbered Highway or Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. USRD doesn't have a "formula" for such things yet though, unlike individual highways. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jburlinson, a belated but very warm welcome to WikiProject Opera! If you need any help or have any questions, don't hesitate to give me shout on my talk page. I'll be away most of August, but you can always get help and advice from other members via our project's talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jburlinson/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by -- Luke (Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

	Teahouse Guest Barnstar
	Hey Jburlinson! I hereby award you the Teahouse Guest Barnstar for your question regarding a Good Article nomination. I wish you luck with your GAN and peer review! -- Luke (Talk) 23:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you look at this proposal and make a comment? I know it doesn't allow for arguments for/against, but it is as "simple as possible". Ta, --andreasegde (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jburlinson. Thanks for contributing to the poll. I wonder if you could alter your comments to be in keeping with the aim of producing poll text? The aim of the poll text is to produce succinct arguments for the various cases, and you have to remember that the poll text will eventually be read by a large number of editors—so you should aim to portray your intending meaning quickly and simply. I mention this specifically because your post suggests that you believe the poll text section is for discussion—hence your signature (which you should at least remove). If you are contributing to the discussion (and not the poll text itself), then please note that there is a section for discussion under the poll text. Thanks. GFHandel ♬  21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Although, truth be told, I don't see anything wrong with inserting little (temporary) comments into the poll text with the aim of drawing attention to issues. I've acted on one such suggestion of yours, and I hope you don't mind that I removed your comment after adopting its recommendation in the poll text? Cheers. GFHandel ♬  22:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're making some excellent points on the mediation page, but IMO, you're being snowballed. I even see that it has spilled over onto your page. I refuse to get into a war of words with the two editors concerned, but I have asked for some clarification from the mediators.--andreasegde (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

"From a stylistic perspective, repetition of the band's name in mid-sentence can become wearying through redundancy". Another great point, and well said.--andreasegde (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been "asked" to leave the mediation. Keep up the great work. :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have removed some non-free images from this article per WP:NFCC#9. Obviously if the article goes live, the images can be restored (if they comply with WP:NFCC, especially our overuse rules). Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that in this post on the case talk page you say that that "part of the historical record regarding this latest deletion has itself been deleted" — do you mean that the page history has been altered? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No -- I made a mistake with that comment about the historical record. The comments that were deleted from the poll section proper were moved to a different place in the discussion sections following the poll and I missed it. Sorry for popping off before checking the situation out more thoroughly. Thanks for your message. Jburlinson (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] [6], [7], [8], [9] and the list goes on here, [10], [11] and [12]. This issue is not worth getting blocked over as five or six editors have already that attempted to interfere with the WP:Ownership. 99.251.125.65 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note how most of the supplied links, above link to unrelated nonsense. Our group double checked them all and they cease to work, as posted. You are not playing on a level playing field in WP. 64.134.128.53 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have answered the question you asked me on my talk page there. I see from your user page, however, that you are an opera lover which is always nice to have more of on WP. When I was younger I used to be the head "super" (non-singing extra) for the two Philadelphia grand opera companies and you can see a picture of me doing that here in a performance of Donizetti's L'Elisir d'Amore (I am Dr. Dulcamara's assistant with the trumpet.) Centpacrr (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I must commend you on your efforts at the Beatles mediation. I did not think there was as much evidence for upper-case as you have added, well done. Your efforts there have gone a long way toward legitimizing a once badly lopsided argument, and you almost single-handedly built up a weak argument to a position of near parity. Thanks for all your input there, the "The" crowd truly owes you a debt of gratitude. Without your efforts, the poll may well have been declared invalid by some, now that argument will fall pretty flat IMO. Its been nice working with you. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. It's been an interesting process and I think we collectively have done a good job of putting all the issues before the voters. You, in particular, have done a stellar job in making the case for lowercase "the." (To be honest, you've convinced me!) I just thought it was important to try to think of any and all arguments that might advance either case. As you know, there's considerable inconsistency across all types of media -- many times, the same source employs both usages. It seems like uppercase "The" is more common on web sites, for some reason, possibly because web authors don't necessarily employ style guides the way other types of published authors & editors have to. Even though WP is a web reference tool, we should probably seek to follow a more rigorous standard to reflect our estimation as an authoritative source by many, many people. I wish I could have found a reputable style guide that condones uppercase "The", but I couldn't, although I tried. Bands are such odd ducks; sometimes it's clear from context that the name is used specifically as a single corporate entity, e.g. "The Beatles was the greatest rock band of all time." Other times, it's obvious that the name refers to four people as individuals, e.g. "the Beatles were worn out after their 1964 tour of the US." The problem comes in when it's not obvious - which is most of the time. At any rate, thanks again for your message and best wishes to you. Jburlinson (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

it matters not my fools for we will eventually get our way someday maybe not today but hey thats okay stay away from us yo lolo hope foundation nutters 41.77.137.96 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that you would include album notes and www.thebeatles.com in your rationale when you know full well that both are mixed and not "The" at all. Beatles For Sale used ALL lower-case and 1/2 of the album pages at the website do as well. But you already know this. Nonethless, I respect your opinion but I am confused why you need to mislead !voters to prove it. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't mislead anybody. The album covers I mentioned both use uppercase "The" consistently. The homepage of the official web site uses uppercase "The" consistently. I went back and took a look at old versions of the homepage, since it changes pretty regularly, and every one I could find used uppercase "The". Some of the other pages sometimes do use lowercase "the", but that's usually because they're quoting somebody else. Why accuse me of "misleading" people? They can check all this out for themselves if they're interested. I've said nothing untruthful. Everyone knows there are examples on both sides of this issue. I'm simply citing examples that seem particularly compelling to me. Jburlinson (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

1/2 the album pages at www.thebeatles. use lower-case, you know that, and it not just in quotes, so don't mislead. Like I said I respect your right to !vote however you want I just thought you had learned something about manipulating !voters with half-truths. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have consistently referred to the "homepage" of the thebeatles.com site. Your insistence on using words like "mislead" and "half-truths" lead me to believe you're calling me a liar. I'm not an old hand at WP controversy and have zero experience with disputes like this one. However, it's my understanding that personal attacks are not condoned by the community. Please explain how your recent messages to me should not be considered personal attacks. Jburlinson (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not my intent to insult you, but look at the mediation page, Feezo also asked you to not manipulate !voters. Lets just agree to disagree. I am not calling you a liar I am suggesting that your have been less than 100% honest with many of your comments at the mediation page. www.beatles.com does NOT consistently use either "the" or The" the usage is mixed, as with the 2009 liner notes as with the original liner notes. You seem to want to repeat this over and over without any acknowledgment that what you are saying is patently false.

From the Beatles' official website:

• Please Please Me
• With The Beatles
• A Hard Day's Night
• Beatles For Sale
• the White Album
• Yellow Submarine
• The "Ticket to Ride"/"Yes it Is" 45.
• The "I Feel Fine"/She's A Woman" 45.
• The "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article.
• The "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article.
• The "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" 45 which uses a lower-case definite article.
• The "Yellow Submarine" EP which uses a lower-case definite article.
• The Beatles Singles Badge Collection which uses a lower-case defintite article.
• The "Yesterday"/"I Should Have Known Better" single which uses a lower-case definite article.
• The Rock n Roll Music LP which uses "the".

~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quiz

From Apple Corps' 2009 liner notes for Let It Be: "When this plan was eventually discarded, The Beatles reunited at their own studio in the basement of their Apple HQ."

From Apple Corps' 2009 liner notes for Abbey Road: "In the early part of 1969, the Beatles had recorded in their own studio in the basement of the Apple office building".

Which did Apple get right and which did they make a mistake on and why? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I am not calling you a liar I am suggesting that your have been less than 100% honest with many of your comments." Saying someone is less than 100% honest is calling them a liar. Saying that what I've said is "patently false" is calling me a liar. Don't you see that? Once again, my reference was specifically to the homepage of the beatles web site. It changes regularly, featuring whatever Apple wants to promote/highlight at the moment. BTW -- "consistently" means "reliably" or "steadily." It does not mean "invariably." For example, my old boss consistently took a coffee break at 9 a.m. and again at 2 p.m. Does that mean he absolutely never missed a single one of those coffee breaks? No. Some days he was sick, so he didn't come to work and had to miss his coffee break. But when he did miss a coffee break at 9 a.m., it was remarkable because of his customary consistency. People set their watches by him.

Also BTW -- posing a mocking "quiz" on my talk page easily could be considered a disparaging act -- wouldn't you say? Jburlinson (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You said -- "Feezo also asked you to not manipulate !voters." Where and when did that happen? Jburlinson (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the archives are but Feezo asked you to persuade versus manipulate !voters. At any rate, I didn't mean to insult you, I assumed you knew it wasn't 100% honest to imply that the Beatles website uses mostly upper, which it most certainly does not. Great work on the poll text though I am glad you were there to build up the evidence as it seemed no one else could but you. So nicely done. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Jburlinson: I assume Gabe means that, as a party to the mediation, you shouldn't "badger" per Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/The_Beatles/Archive_1#Episode_IV:_A_New_Poll. Of course Gabe freely ignores that rule himself, despite being personally reminded of it an in email from a mediator. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought the mediators asked you to withdraw and you agreed? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jburlinson. You have new messages at Feezo's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message and information. A lot to look at but I'll go through it all. Can I ask you a question? I see it tells me to use four Tilden to sign my name yet I don't see any on my I phone. Is there any other way to sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John 1320 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I think we all needed that to help us sit back and loosen up. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Well done Jburlinson! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Carlo Di Palma.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Proof: Jburlinson, you completed your first set of individual notices at 21:25 17 Septmeber 2012. I didn't make any individual notices until two days later, and after having noticed that you were WP:Votestacking. See here. When you use actual evidence to support your claims they are often more believable. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Since you insist on it, let's get down to specifics. On 17 Sept. I notified everyone I could find who had contributed to [13]. The only people I didn't contact were those who had already voted or who had otherwise expressed opinions in the discussion sections of the poll, because it was obvious that these people already knew about the poll. As I reported to Feezo, and you and anyone else who was looking at Feezo's talk page, I contacted the following:

(1) People who had expressed a preference for lowercase: Szyslak, JoJhutton, tSR - Nth Man, BeatlesGirl7, siroχo, Dianna, Rreagan007,

(2) People who had expressed a preference for uppercase: Steelbeard1, JG66, Stlamanda

(3) People who appeared to be on the fence: GoingBatty, Toledo turtle 47, RudolfRed, Dr.K.

Please note that the majority of these people preferred lowercase.

Then, on 20 Sept. I turned to the page here. As I did before, I went through the entire post name by name. If the person had not already !voted, I went to their talk page to post the notice for the poll. Lo and behold, every person who had expressed a preference for lowercase had already been notified -- by you. Oddly, everyone who had expressed a preference for uppercase had not been notified by you. So I notified them. I then posted their names on Feezo's talk page.

If there was any way to get all of this certified by a notary public, I would do so. So withdraw your charge of votestacking, if you care anything about truth, justice and the American way.

Also, please stop calling me a liar. And don't come back saying you didn't call me a liar. That, too, is on record. Jburlinson (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Then why on 17 September, or the days following, did you fail to contact: Fut.Perf, Matt Westwood, John, GFHandel ♬, Keithbob, Lukobe, Littledreamer78 and Abhayakara? They all !voted here, and they all !voted for lower-case. Not all of them had !voted in the new poll and none of them had already been notified by me, as you are now claiming. Question - Is it a lie to tell people that the official Beatles website uses upper-case when you know that at least 1/2 of the occurances there are lower-case? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Also, you insist on an almost constant carpetbombing campaign of "this will effect the MoS and other bands". Either you have a serious comprehension problem, or you are flat lying. You should know that 1) the current Wikipedia MoS is already completely set-up for lower-case, 2) Band articles that are currently ignoring the MoS will not be affected by this poll that is affirming the MoS for articles related to the Beatles. Your relentless attempts to divert/derail the original purpose of the mediation have been utterly frustrating. Band articles that currently ignore the MoS are already non-compliant, so why would a dispute at the Beatles matter to them? I think you only joined this for the drama and dispute, not really wanting a lasting solution, unless perhaps it fell your way, whatever that is as you have gone from "the" isn't part of their name, to lower-case, to upper-case during the course of the mediation. You even wanted to shut-down the poll mid-way when it became clear that "The" didn't stand a chance. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

You ask me why I got involved in this sad situation? Because you invited me to. 7 July 2012 and then again 13 July. What "constant carpetbombing" are you talking about? I've just expressed my opinion a few times. Don't I have the right in this community to do that? Why are you taking this all so personally? Jburlinson (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything personally, that you even suggest it is quite presumptuous. I am simply annoyed by your misleading and manipulative actions. First you wanted to hyjack the mediation and force us to consider whether "the" is actually part of their name. This I think, was an attempt to get us to commit to an untenable position which could be more easily defeated. First you !voted for "the", then after we refused to derail the mediation purpose to your silly question of "is 'the' actually part of their name" you switched sides out of spite (just my opinion). Your addition of irrelevant and highly misleading "evidence" was very dissappointing, but your desire to shut-down the poll mid-way (after it became clear that "The" was going to lose) told me everything I needed to know about your true intentions. Maybe you thought you could sway the poll and assert yourself, well, you didn't, in fact several !voters have commented on how weak "your" evidence is, specifically the band websites and primary sources. In three years, I've only ever called one Wikipedian a "troll", but the word comes to mind when I think of your bizarre and contradictory positions that seem to have done little more than cause confusion and desention, and which only served to lengthen and exacerbate this already tedious waste of time. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Lord, you don't give up, do you? Very well, here goes. On 17 Sept., I sent out notifications at around 20:00 hours (8 p.m.). By that time:

Fut.Perf -- had already !voted -- 10:02

Matt Westwood -- I did notify Matt, at 21:02. I just forgot to include him in my list to Feezo. BTW -- Matt responded to me on his talk page saying -- "Seriously, thanks for the invite, but I'd rather not - I'd be in danger of succumbing to another major timesuck." At which point, you chimed in on 19 Sept and proceeded to badger him for a while. Check his talk page to verify.

John -- had just !voted on 17 Sept. -- 20:26.

GFHandel -- had been participating in the discussion since 15 September 2012. So, even though he hadn't yet !voted, he obviously knew about the poll.

Keithbob -- I had notified him on 17 Sept at 21:09. Just neglected to include him in my list. He responded to my notice on his talk page by thanking me for contacting him. Check out his talk page to verify.

Lukobe -- had already !voted -- 15 September 2012.

Littledreamer78 -- had already posted to the discussion section on 17 Sept at 03:51, so (s)he obviously already knew about the poll.

Abhayakara -- had already !voted on 17 Sept at 15:47.

Any other questions? Jburlinson (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• You should have notified everyone in the lists and not attempted to decide who was already aware and who wasn't. It gave the appearence that some !voters were skipped over for others who support "The". Had Feezo and Strad taken the time to handle the notices themselves (as I repeatedly suggested they should), then the parties to the mediation would not have been put in this compromising position in the first place. As I said, I am all out of good-faith for you, so I think its better that we just avoid each other as best we can. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What would have been the point of notifying someone about the poll when it was obvious that they already knew about it? I didn't "decide" who was aware and who wassn't; I simply checked the transcript and it was clear as day who was aware and who wasn't. Anyway, I explained myself clearly to Feezo at the time I offered to help out. I said I wasn't going to contact people who had already !voted or commented in the discussion. If you didn't like that, why didn't you object at the time? Jburlinson (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, none of this really matters anyway so there is little point in arguing it further. You consistently avoid answering any questions that would clarify things so I will again suggest that we abstain from this conversation as it appears to be little more than an unsatisfing excercise in futility. "The" lost and "the" won, so now we will see who is willing to live with the community consensus and who will continue this tedious and lame edit-war. Cheers! BTW, an authoritative source is not an album cover or a band website, which as primary sources offer the least desirable direction for this type of dispute. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You say, "You consistently avoid answering any questions that would clarify things." What in the world do you think I've been doing during this little exchange with you? You asked me all sorts of questions about my notifications of other editors, and I've responded to each and every one of your posts. During the course of that, I asked you a couple of questions, but you haven't seen fit to answer any of them. It doesn't matter that much, as you say. Since we seem to agree on that, it still leaves me with a question I've already asked -- why have you taken all this so personally? Jburlinson (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I havn't taken any of this personally. That's not possible as I do not even know you, therefore your actions are annoying but hardly upsetting in a personal way. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Any time you call someone else (especially someone you don't know) a liar, you've taken it personally. Speculating in a derogatory manner about my motives is making it personal in an unnecessary way. Surely you can see that. Jburlinson (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good-faith is not a suicide pact. Your actions at the mediation have shown a concerted effort to derail, hyjack, or otherwise complicate and prolong this dispute, now soon to be ended despite your recent comment: "I'm not sure that when the dust of this poll has settled, we will be able to 'put this matter to rest long term.'" What are you implying by this statement? Why do you think that with a 2 to 1 margin and infinately more logical rationales, that this will be a hard call for NYB to make? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• You: "The only reason I didn't notify past supporters of lowercase "the" was because you already had."
• Truth: I didn't notify anyone until after I noticed that you had skipped over supports for "the" two days prior.
• Question - Is it a lie to tell people that the official Beatles website uses upper-case when you know that at least 1/2 of the occurances there are in fact lower-case? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the chronology that I provided above again. It might make more sense the second (or third) time around.

Answer: I do not believe that at least 1/2 of the occurrences on the official website are lowercase. I certainly don't know it for a fact -- and neither do you. There are simply too many pages & sub-pages to count. Anyway, as I've said several times before, I've been speaking about the homepage to the site, which changes on a regular basis. I can't remember a single time when lowercase was used on the homepage. The current homepage doesn't refer to The Beatles in mid-sentence, so that won't help either of us. However, there's a link on the homepage to Apple's "Love" microsite -- where, by my count, on the page [14] "The Documentary" there are 6 references in mid-sentence to The Beatles, all of them uppercase, and on the page for The Show, uppercase is used 2 out of 2 times. Jburlinson (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I told you several times that useage at the Beatles website is about 50/50. I do know this for a fact because unlike you, I researched it. Anyway, this is all moot. Lets just agree to disagree and see what happens after the RfC is closed. I have no desire to discuss this issue with you further. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why in God's name did you go to the trouble of accusing me of votestacking? Jburlinson (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I told you. Because I noticed that you skipped over several supports for "the", though you did not miss a single support for "The", did you? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For the 1,000th time, an authoritative source is not a band website anyway! Do you understand that point? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Then why did you take the trouble to "research" it? Jburlinson (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• What do you say about the Lennon website, which hosted by EMI, uses "the" throughout? Are they wrong? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought websites weren't authoritative sources. Do they suddenly become authoritative when they use lowercase "t"? And how about Official Ringo Starr website, copyrighted by Ringo himself? Uppercase "T" all the way. Is Ringo wrongo? Jburlinson (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)