User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 1 June-August 2006

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)

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)

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)

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 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? 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)

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 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: []. 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 their love to you, remember that they'll always be in love with you! Cheers pal, Vera, Chuck &amp; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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)

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., Which pop star took Dick James to court over a royalty dispute in 1985 and won? Elton John.
 * ,, or (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)

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)

I hope you had a good one (but I´m sure you did...!) Noel and Liam 00:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oswald
1. I was referring to comments posted by RPJ. He has been blocked for them. I didn't type it directly to him, because I knew he was blocked, and felt that everyone could take a refresher in assuming good faith. You were not on my radar. As I said, if it was about you, I would have indented it from your comments or used your username. The comment was to all users, but in reference to RPJ's responses to Gamaliel.

2. You are being too sensitive. You posted "I feel insulted" when there was no insult in the post; and then you demand an apology. For what? Even if I was talking about you or to you, there'd be nothing to apologize for as I was simply giving my opinion. You are free to do so as well. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I just asked that everyone (but specifically RPJ) give Gamaliel the benefit of the doubt before accusing him of incorrect behavior. Where's the attack? Where's the slight? Today, you clearly miss the wink ;-) after "guilty conscience", because you believe you are being attacked, when I did all I could outside of calling you on the phone and telling you that the "Guilty conscience" comment was meant in jest. In any case, considering it was in jest, I don't see how you could find that demeaning.  I am not accusing you of being paranoid.  I'm telling you I think you are being highly sensitive.  I don't play around with language.  I state what I feel.  I feel you are way too sensitive.  I said it clearly in my post yesterday.  I have stated it again. And I stand by it based on all of your perceived slights and attacks that weren't. Ramsquire 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am always wary of replies that are too long... Clarity and being concise is preferred. andreasegde 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if its long, but I'd rather be long and understood rather than short and misunderstood. Ramsquire 19:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a content dispute with Ms. Robert's testimony. It's fine to include the comment, however Wiki forbids original research and discourages what it terms "weasel words". See WP:WEASEL. To overcome my objection, all you need to do is find a verifiable source who questions Ms. Robert's testimony. Ramsquire 20:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the testimony about the police car is fine, but the bus stop is problematic. The Commission cites her testimony to a page 490, but that isn't available on the weblink we've been using.  And clearly she doesn't mention anything about a bus stop in the transcript we've been reading.  I guess we could cite the bus stop to the WC, but I really don't know what to do. Ramsquire 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be wary of adding an unverified comment. If the information cannot be cited, then it should just be removed.  Ramsquire 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That is what is in there now. Roberts´ (not mentioned in the WC report) supposed testimony is there. andreasegde 09:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Bill Bruford
I see your point about the cquote template. It's not to everyone's liking but it has become fairly standard for long quotes in Wikipedia. See featured article Abraham Lincoln for an example. As the template is written the color can't change though the quotes can be made smaller. I'm reluctant to change it because that's the standard size used in other articles and the Bruford quotes are quite long. A bigger problem with the article is the number and length of quotes. It reads more like an interview than an encyclopedia biography. It's borderline copyright violation. --dm (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I´ll cut it down a lot, and paraphrase the quotes. Thanks for letting me know. I got a reply from Bill Bruford himself after I asked him to check the article for innacuracies, and he said it was OK, but complained that it didn´t mention the other (not so famous) stuff he had done... andreasegde 11:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Bold as brass: Yorkshireisms
I did not take out any words that I had not heard of, otherwise it would be a short article. I think even people born and brought up in Yorkshire will not have heard of all the dialect words because they are either not found throughout Yorkshire or known only to a certain generation.

What I did is remove words that I know are used in other parts of England. 'Dawn chorus' is not Yorkshire dialect, my mother says that and she's from Essex.GordyB 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I accidently edited your user page by accident though I have now put it back as it was. Apologies.GordyB 21:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are going to continue to post messages on my talk page can you please adopt a less hostile tone. I do not need to be told to 'think on', especially as I am not wrong.. If bold as brass is a Yorkshireism then it shows up in some unusual places when searched for, brass here means the metal as opposed to brass (Yorkshire meaning)=money. Also you don't like Boro as it is an abbreviation, how is that different from Sheff and Cas, which you did not object to? Boro is in very common usage to refer to MIddlesborough.GordyB 06:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hostile - me? Not on your nelly (by using two words that is a dialect expression?) My interpretation of "Think on" is "Think about it...". I thought (yourself being a rugby fan) that you would enjoy a bit of banter.


 * P.S. I didn´t put in "Sheff" - someone else did. BTW, Why not take out "Boro", "Cass", and "Sheff"? andreasegde 16:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw your posts as hostile but if there was no intent then we'll just cool it down and draw a clean slate. 'Think on' as I interpreted it means "Don't do it again". Half the place names are abbreviations, I don't see what's wrong with that. Abbreviating place names is a very Yorkshire thing to do. My suggestion would be to create a seperate sub section for them, names commonly abbreviated.GordyB 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Little danger of the article getting deleted. Look at Rugby league in Kenya, the article basically states that rugby league was played a couple of times in Kenya; nobody was very interested and it probably isn't played there at all any more. The original author put it up for deletion but somehow it survived. Even porn films have articles and I don't mean just ones like "Debbie does Dallas" or "Deep throat" that people have actually heard of. Sometimes I think you could write an article on a crisp packet you found under your sofa and it would survive a vote for deletion. The most likely event is that it will get merged into the Yorkshire dialect article.GordyB 20:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I´ve been waiting for that as well. andreasegde 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Abuse
I'm not too sure - I have had bad luck in this area, as you may see from my talk page. What has actually happened? Your best bet is to find a friendly admin and report it to them. And don't lose your temper!--Crestville 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where has this argument actually taken place? If it is an admin, find another admin. They aren't infallable. They can tell each other off.


 * Nay, lad, I think it´s alright. Thanks for the advice though. Best wishes. andreasegde 16:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation of The Beatles
Hi, I've got an American "writer" or something on my page giving me grief about The Beatles. I've asked Kingbonk & Less Heard VanU for help, neither of them have responded. Will you please help me with him before I loose it. Thanks, best wishes, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do. I think Kingboyk will like his new name: "King Bonk"! andreasegde 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding and for your help - ooh er, poor old King Bonk! Cheers pal, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn´t mind a name like that! andreasegde 23:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, on second thoughts it's quite good really! Do you think he will change it by deed poll? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can I change mine as well? NO, Crestville, do NOT say anything.. I´m WARNING YOU - but I´m laughing myself silly right now, because I´m waiting for his reply... andreasegde 23:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would only work if someone else gave you the nickname.--Crestville 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, it´s alright. It´s easy to type, and I use it on other sites as well. It would only confuse me. andreasegde 10:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Song competition
Er...."Once upon a time there was a little white Ball"? Close? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ´Fraid not. About as close as me buying a round for you lot :) The song was: "Your good self will never promenade un-es-cor-ted"... or something like that. andreasegde 12:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. At the risk of becoming serious, how strange for ANY team to play or sing it when they're winning - we only sing it (mainly) when we're a goal down (I was going to say behind but if I feed you, I know you won´t be able to help it!:) Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Give ´em half a chance; they´re Austrians. They wear leather shorts and eat sausages. andreasegde 13:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm with you now, you mean Everton! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How the frig did you know that? :) It´s true, they were playing in dark blue! Have Everton been relegated to the Austrian third division? (Don´t answer that... :) andreasegde 17:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural trivia
As I've stated before, I've assumed you are not an American because of your spelling of certain words and also due to your writing style. I don't know if you know this, but in the US, due to political correctness, the phrase "Chiefs and Indians" is no longer in widespread use. I believe that most people who read your post will know what you mean though. But some do find offense in both of the terms "Chiefs" and "Indians" when referring to "Native" or "Indigenous" Americans. (I know you weren't referring to them or meant any offense, but I'd just thought I'd let you know about that, if you didn't know already). Ramsquire 17:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ramsquire. I appreciate your advice. Now... how can I rephrase it? Too many bosses and not enough workers? Too many white-collar workers and not enough blue? I´ll change my original contribution, BTW. Thanks again. P.S. I´ve got it. Critics and contributors... andreasegde 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandal, vandal
You committed the biggest no-no one can do on Wikipedia. You edited my user page! How dare you!?

...just kidding...

Thanks. Reminder to self--- Always proof-read. Ramsquire 17:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about editing it, but I can´t help myself sometimes. I did it to another user - fixed a link about his old school - and he later thanked me, thank goodness. Ten points to you, because you genuinely shocked me with the first line of your message! (Ouch!) (P:S. Think the work that you are doing on the Kennedy pages is going really well.) andreasegde 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You've been nominated
 Ramsquire would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Ramsquire to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.


 * Wow! Yeah if you want it go for it - you can change your name to King Bonk! Good Luck, all the best, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mate, you aren't going to get adminship this time. I'd suggest that you withdraw. Sorry and all that but I'm just the messenger :) --kingboyk 09:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You've done the right thing, and sorry for being the bringer of bad tidings :) Don't worry about not signing your acceptance, it's happened before and it'll happen again - it's no big deal. If you'd like to be an admin you might consider an editor review, and getting involved in things like WP:AFD. Try again in a few months with some more involvement under your belt and you'll probably be successful. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 10:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nah, it´s OK, but thanks for being the bearer, Kingboyk. I thought I didn´t have a chance in hell, but it was really nice to be nominated. (It was interesting to read the comments, because it was like that joke where someone says, "Give me a number." "Errmmm.... 52." "Wrong...!") Have fun. andreasegde 10:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you've done the right thing. I always thought that sort of thing was more trouble than its worth. Chris Donald started Viz and at first it was great fun drawing silly cartoons but then he became editor and it just stopped being fun anymore and he quit. Jim Borwnlow started the magazine with him but pulled back when Donald started to get into editing and stuff. He still contributes cartoons every now and then and is generally quite happy. Donald has observed that when you've got a good thing going, don't get so engrossed with the boring mechanics of it, stick to the fun creative stuff. If you're wondering what the fuck I'm on about, I assure you it's relevant in a round-about way. Let the babies have their bottle (no offence to the admins - whoever you are)--Crestville 15:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You´re absolutely right, and I thank you as always, Crestville. I was just really chuffed to be nominated. It´s nice to get a compliment now and again, and that´s what is was for me, and for all of you, out there........ We should all be concentrating on getting on with each other, and enjoying what we do. Hit me with a large blunt object if I´m wrong... :) andreasegde 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Next subject
I haven´t thought of it yet, but I will... andreasegde 23:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Archiving
Just thought I'd give you a hand with archiving. Made it look tidy. Hope that's ok.--Crestville 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most certainly, Graduate Crestville. (What´s your title?) I thank you from the bottom of my wallet (which is empty) most profusely. Small changes are made by great men. I thank you. andreasegde 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
I wanted to use the Guardian as a source on global warming about a year ago, and was told it was akin to the American tabloid "National Enquirer". Do you know if that is in fact true? Is the Guardian considered a reliable newspaper by most people in Great Britain? Ramsquire 21:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh yes indeedy, The Guardian is right up there with The Times, and is a very well respected paper. (It´s slightly conservative.) The Independent and The Daily Telegraph are also well-respected. The papers that are like The National Enquirer are The Sun, The Daily Miror and The News of the World. (The last one has headlines like "Vicar in sex probe shocker...")


 * Try these:


 * To compare I´ll give you these as well :


 * Happy reading. andreasegde 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nixon aides
I suggest that the list be made compact (several names per line) and kept at the end. Rjensen 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. andreasegde 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dads Army
Classic Stuff. I like Wilson. So vague.--Crestville 20:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yorkshire colloquialisms
I have made a start, you can have a look at what has been done here User:GordyB/Sandbox.GordyB 14:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just be a little careful, you've added quite a few words that aren't Yorkshire words 'back passage' is a term in use throughout the UK. If you can find it in a UK Standard English dictionary then it probably isn't a dialect word.GordyB 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn´t ADD them, I looked them up, and added a link. Careful? We´re the only two people working on it! :) andreasegde 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh... I just looked at your sandbox work, because I overlooked it before. Sorry.
 * If I can be honest for all of us I would say that it´s a monumental piece of work that has to be done. Mammoth. (There some words in the sandbox - like Clemmy - that I have never heard of, BTW.) Problems:


 * "nonstandard pronunciation information which should be rewritten using the International Phonetic Alphabet." If it’s not a problem now, it will be later.
 * The oft-written comment that it should be split up into sections (north, south etc.)
 * The certainty that editors will constantly come along and “lob” words in willy-nilly.
 * Vandals.

If you wish to proceed, I wish you all the best, but it seems all uphill to me. Best of luck. andreasegde 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It will take a long time but it is do-able. Every article gets vandalised and gets inappropriate edits - no difference really.
 * Splitting the section into dialect areas is not practical, most 'Leeds dialect' words would probably also be 'York dialect' words. North Yorkshire is too vast an area to call one dialect area: Skipton is a long way from Whitby, it may even be closer to Sheffield. In any case labelling different dialect areas would largely be original research unless based on something. What I will do is use articles on different regionalised accents e.g. North Yorks (would be better split into Dales / Moors / York / Yorkshire Coast), Cleveland (the Yorkshire bit), East Riding, West Yorks, South Yorks etc and reference each vocab item as to which article names it e.g. 'tyke' might well be referenced by every article whereas 'mardy' might get referenced only by articles on North or South Yorkshire dialects.GordyB 15:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Go for it kid. --andreasegde 12:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ever, Ev, Errr!
Friggin' tell me about it! Maybe there's more to this fiendish tactic of leather shorts and sausages than meets the eye! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To win the Premiership: Eat five Austrian sausages, drink 10 pints of "Zipfer", and wear leather shorts. If you win or not, you won´t give a fcuk. andreasegde 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we tried it last night, we didn't win, but the players certainly looked like they didn't give a fcuk! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright Pal? I'm sure your'e right, a bit of mud and rain will take the wind out their sales! Mind you, I don't think it'll stop bloody Cahill, the lad is all over the place, I don't wish the lad any harm, I just wish he'd piss off on holiday for six months, he really is that influential, why the hell we didn't come in for him I'll never know! So you're a Leeds fan - christ we used to have some right old ding-dongs did'nt we? Bide your time they'll be back, if crap like Reading can do it, so can yews! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm begining to feel like an AFC Wimbledon supporter! Benitez must have given em the Zipfer again! Bloody Chelski - bunch of Foxtrot Charlie's!! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, not bad I suppose, but we could have won the treble in '77 though - useless gets! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers pal, good health! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

John Lennon´s "rich fag jew" comment
I agree. I took it out. The reference should be given where he said that. Even if he did say it, I don´t think it belongs in there. It keeps popping back into the article after I remove it.


 * Well, I don´t know you who you are, but I agree. He did say it, and maybe there should be a section about some of the nasty comments and things he did (which are true) to balance the article out. He wasn´t a saint, after all. --andreasegde 07:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I referenced it. Limp-wristed liberals.--Crestville 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, now.... (but it did make me laugh.) --andreasegde 16:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that if there was a section - which nobody in the whole world has at the moment (about Johnny and his nasty bits) it would balance the whole article out. It doesn´t have to be Albert Goldmann style, but just something that shows his other side. I once read where he said, "Oh, in Greenwich village, where all those Wanna-bees live, y´know?", which opened my eyes a bit. He was not a saint - he was a human being - as he frequently said. andreasegde 17:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After having had second thoughts, I don´t think there is any way in the world that anyone would countenance it. In the bin with it... --andreasegde 16:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles Newsletter 006
Hi. Er.... Are you able to pop over and add some "information" into a newsletter that only requires some news to make it viable? If you don't fancy editing it, then just a few suggestions on the talk page will suffice. I've not been around the project much so don't know too much about current events. Ta.LessHeard vanU 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm poor at getting directions right, but if you go to your last Newsletter there is a link in the editors column for the next(current) edition. I tend to navigate by "watching" the article and hope other people post on it often enough...LessHeard vanU 19:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don´t get a newsletter! Do my armpits smell? :) --andreasegde 19:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My pc does not have a soundcard, let alone a olfactory board! You should have received them if you are on the participants list on the project page (and I believe you are). Have a word with Lar, whose good offices are used for distribution.LessHeard vanU 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) ps. I assumed you are an Andre, as you are male.