User talk:Andreasegde

Hello Andreasegde! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for signing up. Here are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help Where to ask a question Help Desk Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

If anyone leaves a message here, I will reply to it here, for the sake of continuity...

My abode

I have the opinion that we should all work together more often, and not waste time by discussing points that can be proven or disproven by checking the facts. Being friendly and co-operative is my main aim, and although I will disagree with style, I will not contest factual content. The idea of working together should be embraced, and not ignored.

I do not like one-up-manship, sarcastic comments, or anyone interfering with my clothing when I´m unconcious.

If editors want an an argument, then I suggest this page: [1]

Have fun. andreasegde 16:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshireisms

My best suggestion at the moment is Yorkshire colloquialisms. --TheMadBaron 08:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Done it for yer ("Slang" seemed a bit less comprehensive, but feel free to discuss it, we can allus change it again. In my day it were bloody hard to change an article name. We had to get up at 10.00pm, half an hour before we'd gone ter bed and go down the mill.....etc. etc.)--Crestville 09:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Luxury. You kids today, yer don't know yer born.

Agree with Crestville - "slang", to my mind, is more about words which don't otherwise feature in the language - Al-i-fax may be a colloquial pronunciation, but it's hardly a new word.

For future reference, just use the "move" button at top of page. --TheMadBaron 09:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice one lads, I´ll treat thee to a swift half one of these days, if I can find me wallet. Being left-handed and keeping it me right-hand pocket don´t help none...

andreasegde 10:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thompson Twins

I'm glad you enjoyed the photos, I've wanted the article to look better for a long time too. I'm not much of a writer, but I do enjoy adding photos and making small changes. I've been a fan of Thompson Twins for so long that I felt it was my duty to make the page as good as it could be. Great writing, by the way. Starkin 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Starkin. I shall now proceed to the fridge and open a metal tin of something vaguely alcoholic and refreshing... Thanks again. andreasegde 11:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshireisms again

I put it there becuase on every article, it is desireable to start with the title word in the first couple of words, for example, The Beatles article starts with "The Beatles were..." and the Double act article starts with "A Double act is..." when it would be just as correct to put "A Comedy paring is...." or "Comedians are paired for comedic purposes because....". If you think this should be an exception to the rule then by all means change it, but I'm not sure why.

As for the "chimp" and "rod" statements, not my finest hour. That was back when I was a bit more of a litte wiki-scallywag (BTW, I've just realised, Scallywag is a GREAT Yorkshireism).--Crestville 12:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Dear Jim, I would like you to fix it for me to create a new word for Yorkshie colloquialisms" ? Yorkshireisms isn't a word in the dictionary but that just means we can't use it as the title. So long as we imply that it is a word used more commonly that the offical word (YC) we can use it. It's like Paul McCartney. That's not his real name, but it's ok to call him that because it's what we all know him as.--Crestville 12:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Wikipedia being a cooperative effort isn't an excuse for people to blatantly ignore a growing consensus among more experienced editors that trivia sections are a sign of poor writing and of minimal encyclopedic value (if they have any value at all). Considering we have removed trivia sections from The Beatles time and time again, you can't blame some of us for being "frustrated" if we have to repeatedly explain why this is wrong time and time again. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no strict hierarchy, correct, but Wikipedia is not egalitarian either. Listening to what experienced editors have to say is generally a good thing, especially if they agree very strongly about it. Editing Wikipedia is not as simple as writing, contrary to common belief. You have to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not an indiscriminate collection of information, which trivia sections violate. Some of us enjoy reading liner notes. Some of us enjoy reading the texts of political speeches. Neither belong in an encyclopaedia. And if you can't see why a bullet-point list is stylistically (for an encyclopaedia) inferior to prose, then it is a clear indicator you haven't spent enough time around. Lists of any kind in articles are widely considered to be a sign that the articles need improvement in writing. Johnleemk | Talk 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just about almost everyone who has commented on FAC and the sort. "Too many lists, not enough prose" is a common reason for rejecting nominations, and for nominations to defeature existing FAs. (See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Windows XP/archive1 for just one example.) Lists are bad, and trivia lists even more so. Johnleemk | Talk 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We use article lists (e.g. List of Lost episodes) as a directory for articles. These are stand-alone lists meant to guide people to articles they might be looking for. Lists which do not catalogue articles are essentially useless and should either be removed or converted into prose. Johnleemk | Talk 17:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got any of those quotes from, but I can't recall saying any of them recently. Perhaps a specific context would be of aid here, as I simply cannot recall ever saying "where I tend to stir up trouble for fun" in my life (except in jest, of course). The only reason I started writing for Wikipedia was because of its openess, and seemingly good sense of fair play. Fair play means abiding by our policies and consensus, not the freedom to do whatever you like. I now have the distinct feeling that "we" seems to be some kind of hidden club that decides on most things. It´s - scarily - a little like the idea of the "Thought Police". The "concensus" seems to be what "we" think, whoever "we" are. Can we join the concensus? To whom do we apply? Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is shaped by the community - that's what we mean by "openness". However, nobody can simply come along and overturn longstanding consensus, especially if that someone is new to Wikipedia. (If anyone informed you that Wikipedia is egalitarian, they're wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy.) You have the idea of people working together down pat. However, what this means is that you have to respect consensus. You are free to disagree, and certainly, we do not believe in a tyranny of the majority. However, in the end, what is done is determined by what is best for the encyclopaedia, and not what people want to be done. It's as simple as that. Johnleemk | Talk 11:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a consensus of users who have contributed their time and mind to The Beatles page who disagree with Johnleemk's ideals and views. We have put a lot into that page, building and maintaining it. Far be it from me to "lead a rebellion" - I have no intention of doing anything so lame - but really, the hard-bitten dogsbodies get the final say on this one. It's going to stay (too many articles have trivia sections to sway us) so you may as well resign to it..--Crestville 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I say it stays, Kingboyk says it stays, Less vanU says it stays, DavidWBrookes says it stays, James F says it stays, you say it stays - that's consensus enough for me. Johnleemk - good man though he is - is fighting against the current. We made the article, we decide what becomes of it. There's only so much he can do. If he wants to get rid of Beatles trivia, then he can gpo through every other article - stubs, minor articles, The Genius Ade Edmondson - and get rid of their trivia first. There;s a lot of ace info in them and he will have trouble incorperating/loosing it all. More importantly, don't let him put you off just because your "new". There's alot of "newbie bashing" on wikipedia - most of it justified, but not against you. Johnleemk is not a bad culprit. I like him, but he shouldn't have tried to use that against you. You have picked this up very quickly, unlike me - I took ages (just look at my talk page! It could still be argued I'm not quite there yet!) and frankly, your probably a better all-round user than me - you're polite, friendly, courtious, efficient, well informed and frankly, a pleasure to work with. Keep up the good work. If you even need a hand, come to me. I'm not an admin, but I'm a gobby little fucker and will argue your case 'till deaths door. Goodnight and God Bless.--Crestville 22:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've only read Shout, Revolution in the Head and Lennon: The Difinative Biography. I'd reccomend all three (though Revolution is't tenchnically a biography but an in depth review of the music song-by-song.)--Crestville 12:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And Tommy says it stays too, Crestville. :) TommyBoy76 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Gamaliel 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I know; I am a lazy sloth, or forgetful, or both. I will slap myself until it hurts to make sure I don´t do it again. I think I have an automatic reflex in my right index finger... andreasegde 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to make a request as well :) The way you reply on talk pages is making them rather messy. If you're responding in turn to someone else, please insert just one blank line and then use colons ::: for the necessary level of indentation. For example:

This is the message people are replying to. Blah blah blah. --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply level 1 --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply level 2 --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply level 3 --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Second reply at level 2. --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In wiki code:

This is the message people are replying to. Blah blah blah. ~~~~

:Reply level 1 ~~~~

::Reply level 2 ~~~~

:::Reply level 3 ~~~~

::Second reply at level 2. ~~~~ </nowiki>

What you tend to do:

Reply level 1 --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply level 2 --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply level 3 --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your reply

some more of your reply

andreasegde 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --kingboyk 18:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, got that.

Thanks, by the way.

Nice one! andreasegde 13:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Ahhh, looking very nice. Very impressive progression, especially for a trivia section--Crestville 15:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Awww, You're my biggest fan, man. "Hard lines" and "Box Clever" aren't specifically Yorkshire sayings though. I won't hit you where it hurts, but I will hit you with the information the dear Syd Barrett is dead. Only reaon I came in today was to check that. Poor sod.--Crestville 17:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD notification

An article you have edited extensively, The Beatles trivia, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles trivia.--Kchase T 01:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kchase. I now know what it´s like to have the feeling of "having the stuffing kicked out of me". Bugger...

I messaged you precisely b/c you were so involved. Trying to round up votes (especially this way) might be considered ballot-stuffing. I suggest you stop.--Kchase T 02:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will, but I did say that anyone can vote either way, which is being completely neutral and leaving it to the concensus. I only wanted people to know... andreasegde 02:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I restored the section below as I left a comment about it at the AfD. I think you were acting in good faith, but telling lots of other people about an AfD or any other consensus discussion is sometimes a bad idea. The reason is that editors in any given subject area tend to have an attachment to the subject of articles they work on, so the result may represent a lop-sided consensus. To me, that's not being "completely neutral". If you need more participants to get consensus for, say, a proposed policy or guideline, listing it on the village pump or another widely-viewed page is the way to go. But AfD's generally aren't advertised. It shouldn't be a terribly big deal. You didn't know and you made a mistake. Now you know. That's how people learn.--Kchase T 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, I get the point, although I sent the comments to people who haven´t worked on it. They have all had conflicting views about a trivia piece, so they would be neutral.

I was sincerely not trying to cheat. andreasegde 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you were trying to cheat. You just didn't know how the process worked. I encourage you to join the AfD discussion. There's no reason an article's creator can't defend it with reasoned arguments that make reference to wikipedia policy and guidelines.--Kchase T 08:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I will... andreasegde 08:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Beatles trivia on the chopping block

Dear Beatles editors, I have just seen a header that “The Beatles trivia“ is being considered for deletion. I would like you to take a look at it and vote to keep, or delete. The consensus will win the day. I will not vote, as I have been personally involved in the construction of the page. andreasegde 02:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It´s too late to "close the stable door after the horse has bolted", as they say, but I politely request the bunch of editors (5 or 6) who received the above message to ignore it. I can only offer you a sincere apology. andreasegde 02:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the faeces has hit the fan. I now think that Kingboyk was right about changing the name of the article, because the word trivia seems to upset a lot of people. I´m really sorry that this is so. There is even a Wikipedia article called trivia which deals with the subject, and has lots of bullet point lists, as well as linking to plenty of other pages that have trivia pages, so I am deeply confused as to why this page should be singled out.

I can only sit on my hands and wait until it is decided upon. It´s a bit like sitting in a dentist´s waiting room... andreasegde 07:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I didn't single anything out. I'm sure there are lots of other trivia articles about - I just chanced across this one. Just because similar articles exist does not provide a reason that any of them should exist. Trivia, whether called trivia or something else, is simply not something that an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide. Worldtraveller 14:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page about the subject trivia, which has a List of trivia lists has been going from around May in 2005. 90% of The Beatles trivia page (apart from the one article that was already there) has been going for one month. Of course, I am biased, but it seems unduly harsh when an article has just started to get off the ground. Why was The Beatles trivia page not deleted when it first started? andreasegde 17:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's something like 1000 articles created every day, and it's unfortunately impossible for the amount of editors there are to even remotely keep close tabs on what's appearing. I'm sorry you feel it's unduly harsh for 'your' article to have been nominated. Don't know if it will make you feel any better but I do intend to nominate other trivia articles for deletion, when I find them. I certainly very strongly object to 'trivia' lists, let alone a list of them. I really would say your second paragraph of the beatles trivia page is a clear acknowledgement that what's in there is not encyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 23:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not take AfD's personally. I hope that you do voice your opinion with a Keep (if I'm interpreting your comments correctly). Some closing admins merely count Keeps & Deletes and try to get to 75% or keep by "no consensus". Also, I would suggest renaming the article based on the majority of its contents to: Cultural references to The Beatles by later entertainers, or some such thing. I think there's precedent for such articles. Carlossuarez46 00:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Carlossuarez46. I want to merge it with The Beatles´ influence on popular culture, because I think it would be perfect there. The "popular culture" page is very unloved and needs a good re-write. Thanks again. andreasegde 12:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on my user page. Unfortunately, it's not the votes that count, but the quality of the votes. It will survive, but only if there are edits. In my opinion. --Richhoncho 16:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely Fabulous

Sorry about this! I see you have added to the above article, unfortunately according to the list of AbFab episodes this particular episode was not a "special." As some AbFab episodes already have their own article, perhaps you might like to consider moving your contribution to a new article? I would change it, but I don't want to get smacked again. Especially as it is also a repeat of something that is in that article. LOL. --Richhoncho 15:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They don´t, as far as I could see. They just have bullet-point list. Sod it, I´ll wait and see if someone deletes it! Que sera, sera... whatever´s de-le-ted... andreasegde 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They do. It's at List of Absolutely Fabulous episodesand your words have been edited (minor) and moved to a new article. The main part of your words I have changed is is regard to "undiscovered" tapes. Nobody knows if something is "undiscovered" and I have Beatle tapes which aren't official released too! --Richhoncho 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly the tapes are an urban myth. OTOH something "undiscovered" is precisely that - no confirmation or denial is appropriate. --Richhoncho 18:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I don´t mind. andreasegde 18:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the news - somebody has recently been sentenced for attempting to sell Beatles "lost" tapes on the internet (some four years ago). There is some sort of malarky going on...LessHeard vanU 13:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

George Toogood Smith up for deletion

Hello! Just to let you know, the article on George Smith, John Lennon's uncle, who raised him as a son, is up for deletion. While I in no way wish for non-notable people to be given articles purely on the basis that they are related to someone famous, Smith was like a father to Lennon and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles mythology (if that's the right word). He features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, which highlights close connotations to the fact that he is mainly famous for his relationship to Lennon. Other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon. I just thought I'd give anyone interested the oppertuninty to voice their opinions here: [[2]]. Ta very much. P.S. I love you.--Crestville 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly--Crestville 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL

No problem you're most welcome! Yeah, Dead Gear innit? Chuck & Dave send thier love to you, remember that they'll always be in love with you! Cheers pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Noel

He's a card isn't he? I would hope that one liners page would be deleted right off the cuff, though the sentiment is appreciated. Been getting hassle off of a troll or something getting under my feet. Still, such is life. How are you anyway?--Crestville 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it's roasting over here too. I don't really want to be a Barrister, it sounds like hard work. I want to teach, preferably Year 2/3 students coz they're old enough not to be annoying and not so old as to be smart-arses. And I could hit them (Not really). By they way - the elephant thing: The single most disgusting comparison I have ever heard. Brilliant - can I use it?--Crestville 16:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to put up with some right bastards on wikipedia. In part it serves me right but Thank fuck for you. Thank you for being so nice. God Bless You. Love and Beatles, Joe.--Crestville 21:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

thx

Thanks for the encouragement, compliment and humor: I prefer wandering the obscure corners of the 'pedia. There are plenty of Beatles fans updating the page who can drop paragraphs, un-dangle our participles and join our infinitives. I'll ride a random page off somewhere and see where it leads me! John (Jwy) 13:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"un-dangle our participles and join our infinitives."? Blimey, I will use that as an opening line... I can see it now...

"Good evening, dear lady - I couldn´t help but notice you standing so forlornly by the pot-plants with your cup of tea. Would you object if I asked you to join me in a little un-dangling of our participles, and maybe later.... errr... join our infinitives? Marvellous stuff. andreasegde 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat

Is it really? Well I never. Don't worry, I shall not press charges. Then again, I could make a bit of money out of this (presuming you are willing to page money to mess about on here)--Crestville 14:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

St Bedes

Wow, that was a weird thing to do. I don't normally like people changing my user page but a) it's you and b) I've not been on that website since I went to Bedes. It was really nice to see it all again. I'm always quite sad I broke off that part of my life, with the teachers and that, who I loved and the fun times I had. I still meet old friends just to talk about the things we did. Nostalgia eh? I probably hated it when I was there. Well, whatever inspired you to do that for me, thankyou very much.--Crestville 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Give peace a chance

I was not attacking you. You chose to defend RPJ based on archived and edited entries on talk pages. You chose to jump into something and defend someone without having all the information. So I called RPJ your "hero", big deal, it was a joke. I never called you a conspiracy nut or any other. I just told you that the conversations have been edited to take out his personal attacks. FTR-- In deleted conversations, among the things RPJ has called editors are liars, jerks, phonies, and also was accused of anti-semitic attacks (I didn't see these attacks because another user edited them out).

Even though, RPJ and I have attacked each other, I still try to work with him. If another user, chooses a different route, who are you to blame them? You were offended because I referred to him as your hero, can you imagine how'd you feel if someone directly attacked your integrity?

Ramsquire 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that odd that RPJ made all those bad comments in "deleted" comments. RPJ 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all have been deleted. Just the worst ones. There are still a good number of comments by you attacking the credibility of users who disagree with your point of view.Ramsquire 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, please... You are now writing to each other on MY talk page. Give me a break. I would be irritated by this, but I´m laughing too much.... andreasegde 05:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied to this. Let´s all work together to provide information for an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It´s a dirty job, but someone´s got to do it. Let´s do it together. andreasegde 18:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and try to do so. I don't take stuff as seriously as some do, but I'm not them so I can't be too judgmental. I just didn't understand your intentions when you decided to defend RPJ to Gamaliel on the piecemeal information on the talk pages. It'd probably be simpler to defend the dog to the cat? (joke intended).

Ramsquire 18:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Ramsquire. My intentions were as you read them. If I had read the collection of insults that have been (supposedly) thrown around, I would have written something else. I can only go on what is presented, can I not? I would have thought one could archive insults and attacks, so as to have some form of defence in case of disagrement, and not delete them. Might be a good idea, huh?

Anyway; I have agreed with RPJ about a quote from LBJ, (see talk page) but I disagreed with him about a right-wing conspiracy piece. So there you go... now my hat is in the ring.

I do think RPJ has some valid points about people deleting stuff because they disagree with it. It´s not very Wiki, and the page is getting to be "I´ll let you put your bit in if I can put mine in." Maybe we have to agree (good grief - is it possible?) about the basic rules and layout of the page. I´d throw these in, for what they are worth:

1. No personal name-calling. 2. No theories without citations. 3. Both sides must be presented. 4. Take out "Response" and merge it into "One-shooter".

There you go, you can now kick me where it hurts (Ouch!) if that´s not sensible. andreasegde 15:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia survives

"The dog's not so bad, man. He has a shiny coat, keeps away burglers, smokes a pipe and brings my slippers. Don't be so harsh on the dog. What have you ever done anyway? F**k you cat! You do f**k all! Worthless sh**house." There. Easy. BTW, WTF about Trivia! No offence, but much as I didn't want to see it go, I really thought it would! Well done indeed to you sir.--Crestville 19:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, but other editors worked on bits of it, and I wouldn´t like to claim the credit. I copied a lot of stuff from other pages, but I did put a comment at the end of the discussion that may have swung it to Keep. I paraphrase: "Think of a new user that has recently discovered The Beatles and wants to know more about them. They would find this page and be connected to lots of other articles that they would probably never find, even if they trawled through hundreds of pages. Go on, try it..." or something like that. I´m just happy it´s still there, because I can now start using the toilet on a regular basis again... andreasegde 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshireisms for the last time

(from User talk:Pearle) Could you give me a few pointers as to what I should do so as to conform to Wiki style? Thanks. andreasegde 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pearle is a computer program that automatically refiles articles to be wikified by month. But the main documentation for wiki style is Wikipedia:Guide to layout. -- Beland 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like this article is coming along well; I marked two sections which just need some indentation help so they will read more cleanly. You can indent by putting one or more colons (:) at the beginning of a line. -- Beland 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mad Man, Quotes and Doughnuts

(The Mad Man series)

As you have worked on this article I thought you might like to know I have listed it AfD. BTW I don't understand how you can change a quote. It's either a quote (with or without correct grammar) or it's not. --Richhoncho 11:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Richhoncho,

Do you think "Brent" would want the original quote to be in if he knew it to be wrong? Go on, ask him. Also: Do you think a page with that kind of grammar would escape the gaze of a steely-eyed wiki-man like yourself? :) (BTW, did you AfD it because of my correction?) Have fun. andreasegde 12:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No I listed it because it is nn (no Ghits), because it fails WP:SPAM and probably half-a-dozen reasons. I'd actually speedied it before you made any changes. Changing grammar would failWP:POV. Would you change JFK's "I am a doughnut" quote because JFK got it wrong? No, of course not, changing the grammar in an article is good, but not the quotes. If somebody said something, then they said it. If you change it, then they didn't say it. Think about it! --Richhoncho 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that if Brent said it, he´d want to change it. If the editor got it wrong, then he´d not want to make Brent sound ungrammatical. Of course, I could say that I paraphrased it, so as to make it clearer. How´s about that?

I could also say that I´m afflicted with "Wiki-itchy-finger syndrome", that kicks in when I spot something amiss. Or I could say "Whoops!" because I didn´t mean to do that, your honour... Take your pick, but don´t make me wear the hair shirt again, please. I´ve had it on for a week.

Kennedy didn´t make a grammatical mistake, it was just his advisors who didn´t know the true meaning. There should have been a few Germans to tell him if it was right or wrong, don´t you think? Ho-hum.

Oh! Just found this on Wiki: "Ich bin ein Berliner", which states that the doughnut theory is an urban legend. andreasegde 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you've proved my point, it's just as well *I* didn't change the JFK quote. --Richhoncho 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Brent and Kennedy live in separate universes, but that´s my POV. So.... good, now I can take the hair shirt off. Cup of tea, anyone? andreasegde 15:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You´ll like this Richhoncho: Did you look at the history section of The Mad Man series? A certain "Brent65" contributed lots to it. I wonder who that is? (Doh!) Not only did he write the article (POV, of course) but he quoted himself , and did it badly. I think your AfD is a job well done. (I put a "delete" in as well, even though I corrected the quote - Doh!) Time to get the hair shirt out again.... :) andreasegde 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's one of the reasons I listed it for AfD. LOL. But, again it's one of the reasons you shouldn't change quotes without verification. In this case we can be fairly certain this is what "Brent" said. But more importantly, don't beat yourself up, we all make mistakes - as long as we learn by mistakes and the right concensus is reached no harm is done. --Richhoncho 16:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, point very defintely taken. I will write out 1,000,000,000 times, "do not change quotes", and "do not exaggerate." :) andreasegde 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Be the 115th Beatle

I was only joking about the hair shirt... But this brings me to a good point. It´s true, we all make mistakes (like putting in a bullet-point when 2 or 3 colons for an answer would suffice, Honcho-baby - laugh...) but it´s how we talk to each other when something goes awry. The reason I like contributing to The Fabs is because we can all have a joke about it in the end, and that makes life worth living, don´t you think?

You should come on in, and join us. You are a good editor, and you spot stuff that passes most of us by. Don´t let publishing contracts put you off; they´re only handcuffs on paper anyway... (POV - ouch!) C´mon in and be the "115th Beatle". andreasegde 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Your contributions are appreciated

Thank you for your contributions. They make the articles better.

If all the information that is now public is presented in an informative way, the related pages could be much shorter. RPJ 18:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Insults

If anyone feels the basic - and obviously uncontrollable - urge to abuse me personally, or to be wildly racist, then I suggest you put it into this section. It will save time... andreasegde 19:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• "rv. American president, American history. We use American spelling. Put your fibres in Churchill articles". (A response to my use of the word fibres, and not fibers.)

(Wikipedia says this: "The spelling of fibre is used in Commonwealth countries, and is sometimes used in the United States as well. [3])

• "Perhaps you'd like to berate the Beatles for earning money from other people's songwriting, too?"

• "it is good enough to spot a load of old tosh".

Nice one

On my end, all the stuff I had with RPJ is in the distant past. But that doesn't mean I won't voice my concerns about his entries to him and I'm sure he'll voice his to me. But I'd like to think the personal attacks are over between him and me. As far as I know, it's all good between us. I figured that I'd respond to his comment on the page he made it on, lest it get confusing. But I'll respect your talk page and not do that anymore.

Peace and love. Ramsquire 16:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the very nice message, Ramsquire. Nice one. I only said I would be irritated if I wasn´t laughing so much. It was meant as a silly joke. (It´s a bit like saying, "I would kill that woman if I didn´t love her so much..."

Anyway; I´ve been chopping a few bits out of the page, and I wondered what you thought. I always leave a message on the talk page in advance. Have fun. andreasegde 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gold Envelope

Ever a man of my word:

The Original Barnstar This barnstar is awarded to The Mighty Andreasegde by Crestville for winning "Spot the Les Dennis" and for having a girls name

You can now copy the template and display this on your user page if you so please and watch the babes come flooding to your door. Love and Grapes --Crestville 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a girl´s name, I just chose a stupid user name (Doh!) I think it´s time for a change. Any suggestions? Thebiggirlsblouse, whatatosser, upyours, dozytwonk, whatawanker, and shutyergobyoustupidgit come to mind... andreasegde 17:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't bother. Stick by your convictions. Otherwise, I'd have to learn a new name for you.--Crestville 21:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Clay Shaw

I'm asking for an Rfc [4] on the Clay Shaw page regarding the Max Holland article. Please comment. I know you haven't commented or edited that page, but you may have some insight to help get past this impasse. Thanks. Ramsquire 17:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dick James - "without him The Beatles might have been forgotten today"

I added "Citation Needed." You have no details regarding the actual income of Dick James. There is an implied suggestion in your wording that Dick James didn't work for his money, which would be untrue. Do you know how many writers Northern Songs signed, I can tell you it's more than 4. Perhaps you'd like to berate the Beatles for earning money from other people's songwriting, too? --Richhoncho 19:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:FACT and WP:NPOV, the addition of the word "massive" fails both. If you can find a reputable reference then the word should stand. I say, Dick James worked the product to such an extent that without him the Beatles might have been forgotten today, he probably POV helped finance them in the beginning too. It is the "music business" first and foremost. Same things apply to other articles you have edited, you assume because somebody earnt money from the Beatles then they must be BAD, and if they helped the Beatles they must be GOOD. Oh it life was as simple as that! Please either remove "massive" or put back the citeneeded. Don't care which, but let's stick to facts, eh? --Richhoncho 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh... I´m not even going to start answering this. (I´m a writer, not a fighter). I highlighted some points that seem to speak for themselves... andreasegde 14:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing Elton John, Dick James, Paul McCartney, Larry Parnes, staff writers for Northern Songs any good as sources? No it's not, but it is good enough to spot a load of old tosh when I see it. --Richhoncho 20:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"spot a load of old tosh"...?? It was only one - "massive" - word.

Why are you so angry? Calm down. Remove the word "massive" if you want. I won´t complain. Replace it with:

barn door, big, blimp, bulky, colossal, cracking, cumbersome, cumbrous, elephantine, enormous, extensive, gargantuan, gigantic, grand, great, gross, heavy, hefty, huge, hulking, humongous, immense, imposing, impressive, mammoth, mighty, monster, monumental, mountainous, mungo, ponderous, prodigious, solid, stately, substantial, titanic, towering, tremendous, unwieldy, vast, walloping, weighty, whopper, whopping... (I don´t mind.) Goodnight... andreasegde 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget large.--Crestville 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You´re right! That´s the last time I use Dictionary.com. andreasegde 16:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Last word on this royalty thing. Read these:

There was a debilitating court fight against his original song publisher, Dick James Music. [5], Which pop star took Dick James to court over a royalty dispute in 1985 and won? Elton John.

[6], [7], or [8] (which is the best...) andreasegde 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What did I do...

...to deserve a "darling"? Merely curious (grin)LessHeard vanU 20:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I´m following Crestville´s, and Ramsquire´s leads, by saying something wonderfully odd - but extremely nice - on WP pages (but I´d probably had a few and was feeling remarkably relaxed and benevolent as well.) Ho-hum... Peace and love everyone, and have a happy happy xmas... andreasegde 14:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Or Birthday. It's my birthday tomorrow.--Crestville 14:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Bugger, I was going to put that one in as well... Anyway;

Happy Birthday to Crest, Happy Birthday to Ville, Happy Birthday to Crestville... Happy Birthday to both.. andreasegde 14:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Oh, cool. I thought I had done something incredible by accident (my usual modus operandi in the incredible stakes). For future reference I draw the line at "Fluffy Bunny", more than my jobs worth! (Crestville should recognise that one!) LessHeard vanU 23:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dick James RIP

Thanks for that link, I must have been signed to Schroeders by the same guy - who also signed Hendrix - and there lies a tale not fit for public consumption - people might think music publishers are really nice guys! The Elton John case is pretty typical of the music business, never do royalty audits and then scream they have been "ripped off." Without Dick James it's a disctinct possibility Mr. Dwight might now be an unknown piano bar player. Didn't he accuse John Reid of the same? If the EU gets its way, then these type of long-term contracts will become illegal anyway, at which point all the record cos and publishers will close up shop, or maximise the profit on old stuff, because there will be no returns on breaking new artists. As for the other sites you linked on my page I'd put them down as pure "PopTart" and not worth the time it took me to skim through. Enough off-topic chat. --Richhoncho 19:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply.

We have both agreed to disagree about the music publishing business, but I totally agree with you about the point that musicians "never do royalty audits, and then scream they have been "ripped off." But they trust people too much... (All you need is love.) Have fun. andreasegde 19:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but when you have bona fide citable sources for your comments then I can't argue, can I? Not all music publishers are equal are they? --Richhoncho 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not equal. Rupert Merton - from the Thompson Twins - was an extremely affable, very fair, and honest publisher, as I have read. I am sure there are lots more. I have nothing against fair publishers, but I do have something against musicians (we´re agreeing about this now) who don´t read contracts properly. Maybe we should be talking about their laywers, and advisors, and not about anyone else... I wish you the best. andreasegde 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the RFC that purportedly took place?

There are now self congratulatory comments written by Ramsquire in the Clay Shaw article. Are you able to clearly and concisely state what he claims took place?

Thank you. RPJ 05:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Clay Shaw

I was thinking about our discussion and wondered if you meant informer as a synonym for "snitch" or "tattle-tale", as is acceptable in common parlance? The problem is, in law inforcement they mean different things. And here on Wiki, where no one knows the context of statement, it's best to avoid such confusion.

Olive branch extended. Ramsquire 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Birthday

lol, thatks for the Birthday message - it was at the top so I only just noticed it. I still can't really talk properly. And cheers for the messages of Noel and the boys. I knew it was you, but it was still very sweet - sort of like when my Dad forged Donald Duck's signiture for me while I was in the toilet at Disneyland because we couldn't find him. Cheers buddy!--Crestville 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)