User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 26

re WP:ANI#Andreasegde
Heads up! re Life and Death... I almost did myself a mischief when Ultra referred to you as Andre; does that count? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone once printed out posters declaring that the artist appearing that night was called "Andre Age". Say it quickly in an Austrian accent and it all makes sense. :) Also; rubbing your index finger with the other one and saying "Haitsch" (like saying the letter H) means taking the urine in Austrian, which is unfortunate for me, as you can guess. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you get blocked :p--Crestville (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC) (kidding)

You little scamp, I'll tan thee hide if you don't stop breaking the butcher's windahs.--andreasegde (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Tee hee hee --Crestville (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice needed
Sorry to disturb you, i know your busy and i hope that BS above is resolved. Im reviewing an article and im on the side of passing it, im still worried about the pros though. It just doesnt read well, feels really disjointed and drab. I reviewed it leaving suggestions, some of which were answered with a simple NO! LOL! I would like to know your thoughts on the pros/article, either on my talk page (which i would favour) or the article talk page. Here is the article. Cheers. Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 05:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks good to me. A few little things stood out, but you should always leave something for the reviewer.--andreasegde (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheers, thankyou ;-) -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 14:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Toogood to be true (ha fucking ha)
Happy days! :)--Crestville (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Young Cresty is talking about George Smith (John Lennon), who was called George Toogood Smith, and whose page Crestville started.--andreasegde (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

re WP:ANI#Andreasegde
I added a comment, i hope this mess gets sorted soon, i think its stupid and a waste of admin time. -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 19:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope everything is sorted, this is so .... i cant think of the words to describe it! Just let it pass, if you want me to put any articles on my watchlist or if theres anything i can do, please let me know. Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 18:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fight the good fight!
Just a few weeks ago, Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug dragged me to WP:ANI. His case against me was dismissed. I have left a message of support for you at WP:ANI. I hope you won't let him get to you and that you won't be disheartened. The only way to deal with bullies is to face them down. You should contact User:hbdragon88 for help as he was the one who got Ultraviolet scissor flame/Vikrant Phadkay/Paerduug blocked twice from Wikipedia for being a page blanking vandal. All the best. Vonita (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

See what he's up to
See what he's up to. He's running to Admins to stir them up against you.

Vonita (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Left a choice message for him!  lol Vonita (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank you a lot for the information. This user knows how to use the rules, and is a new kind of vandal (as I have already said on other pages). He is a menace to the very fabric of Wikipedia, and should be very closely watched.--andreasegde (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The positive vandal
OK, I've had enough of this. Will someone PLEASE tell this user (Ultraviolet scissor flame) to stop? He has had his bit of fun with Paul McCartney, but he needs to be told that this can not go on. Just look at what he is doing now... I truly believe that he has a personal bias against McCartney, and pretends to be a "newbie", but as anyone can see, he is not. This message will posted on various pages. --andreasegde (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I shall compose a suitable warning, but in the meantime I would request you to not add comment within the article space about Ultra! (general comments should be within the "comment out" spaces.) It is not worth it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left a warning on Ultra!'s talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, and I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Confused...
So are you on your break, or not? Your talk page lacks a Wikibreak template, but your user page does not. Anyway, thank you for your vote on my suggestion. Please click the link, for I have added more information that may enlighten you. :-) Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 02:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I am, although certain people in my immediate vicinity (at home) do not agree...--andreasegde (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Again, thanks for your participation in the discussion. You have swayed my opinion. However, I have a new proposition that might make the FA folks happy while not compromising the ever-important content. Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ain't it the truth
You are not alone. Tvoz / talk 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tvoz; that was a great part of the film, because Pacino/Corleone had a diabetes attack just after it, and that scene was almost as good as his silent scream at the end after his daughter died, which is (as has been said) one of the truly great acting scenes in cinema.)--andreasegde (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As compared to the really awful "Dad?" that Sofia Coppola uttered in her death scene - she's a good writer and director, and she really looked the part, but that acting job made me long for Winona Ryder who was originally cast as Mary. And don't even get me started on George Hamilton vs Robert Duvall... but I agree about Pacino and in fact despite those quibbles, I thought III was a good movie, almost up to the level of I and II, and the three as a piece are unmatched.   I appreciate your sweet words - I of course wouldn't mind having the admin tools to fight for peace and justice and the American way,  but I don't like the way the process to get there is structured and so far haven't been moved to put myself into it. But never say never. Tvoz / talk 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tvoz, I composed a great answer but I had an edit conflict, which wiped my whole reply. I have to remember to copy the bloody stuff before. :(--andreasegde (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Paul McCartney
You may find this one a bit of a lulu... This is the claim that Macca was not a founder of t'Fabs, which has been taken up by somebody completely different from the last editor who was involved. During your absence (and thus not reading this) are you able to look in any of your reference books and note here or there what they say about Macca (not) being a founder of Scouse City Rollers? I believe it is up to the other chappie to provide sources that say Macca wasn't - but I wouldn't mind quoting one or two of the generally accepted authorities that supports my understanding. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict? Use your back button to get back to the edit page - highlight your contribution and save, cancel the edit or use the forward button. Start a new edit and paste the text in the appropriate spot... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC) ps. who were you conflicting with?

You, dearest! I tried that, but it always wipes everything Wot I wrote. :)) I have compiled an answer to your co-found request, BTW, and it's fairly intellectual... (God help us from Andreasegde.. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No; God help us from university students that have a yearning for their debating societies... Did Julia Lennon and Alfred Lennon co-found Lennon? Give me a break... but "give me a sperm citation and be done with it, you cad, Sir!"... :))--andreasegde (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As you put it, it is a double edged sword to bring philosophy such as identity theory into this. However, the argument I've been presented with is not based in proof but argument itself. If bad history is passed on rote by being unquestioned, we have only ourselves to blame at its paucity. MartinSFSA (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well written Sir, but your history is based on opinion, not fact. Have fun. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Your" being a general "you" here, I hope. I argue that history is not relative, is not a construct and exists independently as a linear non-paradoxical event/s. Accordingly, it is lost in a forest and for the main part indistinguishable from other plants. Philosophy of history has a lot to learn from philosophy of science. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh... you are good, Martin. :) Re: "is not a construct and exists independently as a linear non-paradoxical event/s". I'm not even going to attempt to answer that, because I'd rather walk over hot coals. Get the firelighters out. :))--andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's cool; I'm looking forward to you refuting my claim. I've just had a score in research so go anything you think is relevant. MartinSFSA (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back
Please brighten up your user page, its dull but your so not. ;-) -- Realist 2 ( Come Speak To Me ) 01:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I put a few old photos back on, but I'm not big on putting edit counts on and articles I've started/contributed to. I have no problem with anyone else doing it on their own pages.--andreasegde (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

GA
That's great! I wish I could take credit for it but lets face it, you did the important work. Pat yourself on the back --Crestville (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

388
Well, blow me down with a feather, I'm 388 on the Nerds/people with too much time on their hands/sad gits list. Not that it impresses my landlord much, though.--andreasegde (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad! Whats your edit count, or is that top secret? — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 20:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This page says 30,608. I only think of this stuff as fun facts and figures, because one edit can be just changing the Beatles to The Beatles, which I don't consider an edit at all. I was shocked at being 388, because I didn't consider myself a serious Wiki-nutcase. It's still a hobby to me.--andreasegde (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, "forgetting" to sign your talkpage comment and then "correcting" the situation is a sure fire edit count inflater... ;~) Nah, what really counts is when a block of inline cites suddenly appear in the midst of a previously bare article. Thems the real juice, and you are still pretty much top to the tree in providing those edits too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow thats a lot! --— Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I was just putting in stuff that needed to be put in, changed, or corrected. If there was a way to count edits by bytes and not single edits, the result would be a lot different. Wait a minute, that's not a bad idea. :))--andreasegde (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I had no internet connection for a whole week, and it was quite nice... :)--andreasegde (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

How brave are you?
Hmmmmmm? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not exactly as I imagined you, dearest. It will certainly frighten a few vandals off, and is more honest than those simpering "Look at my picture - do you want to be my friend?" photos. (Although I do wonder about Phishing, when one gives out a lot of information.) --andreasegde (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my "Look at my picture - do you want to be my friend?" photo! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Slight problem with marketing strategy there, methinks :)) One's instinctive reaction when presented with aforementioned photo (in a dark alley of your choice) would be to soil one's undergarments, pronto. I'll bet it scares the pants off anyone silly enough to mess about. :). (BTW, thanks again for the great help on Macca.)--andreasegde (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just had another look - it's the eyes. Penetrating's not the word... :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Penetrating? No, just friends... ;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what that means, but I'll bet a lot of others don't. :))--andreasegde (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A real gentleman. ;) Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 17:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, fellas, I just had a look, and now I'm afraid to close my eyes.... Tvoz / talk 06:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "boo!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thriller (album)
This is on peer review again, I will be taking it back to FA soon. If you have any advise please let me know. Regards. — Realist 2  ( Come Speak To Me ) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Patti Boyd
I found it with a Photobucket copyright here - so no matter what the "true" copyright might be it cannot be released under the GDFL. I will look further at Jane Asher. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I thank thee kindly, oh optically scary one... :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I found nothing on Jane, but it looks like an image taken from a contemporary magazine - and I note that the info on the image page has no detail on what equipment was used... I would challenge it, as JA is a living person and there enough potential "free use" photos (although none in her modelling prime). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Haven't seen you in a while. See the talk page. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. LOL, I'm listening to Sgt. Pepper right now. (Then again, when am I not?) :) Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 17:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Just following policy
Be bold and assume good faith. Gosh that was the most incivil thing I've seen anybody do on Wikipedia. That too to the editor who took the pains of creating a completely free picture for the infobox so that nobody could argue against it at a possible future FAC. indopug (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, your tiff is with the Quarrymen article. So what now every rock band's article should have pictures of guitar, bass and drums in them? indopug (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey people, let's talk about being "incivil". Hmmm... Never heard that word before. It's uncivil, for those in need of a dictionary.

Deleting free-use photos is indicative of someone who needs to know that illustrating an article stops people from going blind. Maybe you read telephone books for amusement. Why not? Everybody needs a hobby.--andreasegde (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For interested readers: The above comments are from a photo hater, and, as everyone knows, we have too many of them. This user roams around articles deleting free-use photos at will, never leaves a note on the talk page, and thinks he/she has the right. They should be stopped.--andreasegde (talk) 08:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see I've really offended you. I don't know how, but lets leave that. Can you explain to me why a picture of a banjo or a washboard were required for the understanding of the Quarrymen article? Why not add the free pics of Lennon, Macca and Harrison that we have? heck, even a non-free photo of the original Quarry men would be fine under fair-use. indopug (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting free-use photos. If you carry on doing it, you will be reported. Your arrogance (by never leaving notes on talk pages) shows that you do not care at all about consensus. You are not a law unto yourself, and you are not Wikipedia. Get it?--andreasegde (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just being bold. I left edit summaries that said that I felt they were irrelevant in the context. If you disagreed, you could've just talked to me about it; I don't see why you needed to go postal on me. I have every right to report you for personally attacking me and assuming bad faith (how ironic that you ask me to BE NICE after all that :D). On the other hand, you are going to report me for what? Being bold? Removing what I felt were irrelevant pictures? As for building consensus, I don't believe I need to discuss every single edit that I make. indopug (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand consensus do you? You take words like being bold to mean that you can do anything you like. If you stand behind those words (and your misunderstanding of them) then I also have right to do anything I please. It doesn't work, does it? Stop being arrogant and learn that WE are all here together. You can not do as you like, as you need the agreement of others. Get off your high horse, and get down amongst us all, and learn how to communicate. Talking is paramount, which you have to learn.--andreasegde (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will give you some good advice, which is to read Kodster's pages, and his comments. He is an editor to be admired, and has abilities that you sadly lack.--andreasegde (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you really want my opinion, some of the pictures (like the telegram) were blatantly unnecessary, and didn't need consensus. However, others had an arguable use (such as the McCartney, Lennon, and Martin one). However, to Indopug's credit, Indopug did add some good pictures to the article (such as the Ed Sullivan pic and the "entry to America" pic) to make the article not look like a phone book, which are quite a pleasure for stalkers to read.


 * I have to agree that there's not only inappropriate pics but also inappropriate info as well. I saw previously that Andreasegde (don't mean to point the finger) pointed to 1(b) of the FA Criteria, Comprehensive, and points to WP:PAPER (Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia). However, it still holds true that A LOT of the info in the article is sourced by irreputable websites. I mean really...plzdontshoot.us? That is insane...a lot of the info is unsourcable, and other info is just way too in-detail and is part of the reason why the article looks like a phone book. I'm not a deletionist, but you have to strike a balance between WP:WEIGHT and WP:PAPER, because what we appear to have here is the two extremes clashing together. Hopefully that balance can be striked struck :P so that we can assume good faith and be bold. And if you've read this whole thing, then good for you! Cheers, Kodster ( heLLo ) ( Me did that ) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Which article? I was discussing The Quarrymen. The only telegram photo is in the Brian Epstein article, and the plzdontshoot.us ref is in The Beatles article.--andreasegde (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As for user Indopug, he/she finds it easy to delete photos (free-use or not) and to leave sarcastic edit summaries without leaving any notes on talk pages.--andreasegde (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is really strange: A fair-use photo by Indopug on The Beatles page? When he/she deletes many free-use photos on other pages? Please tell me how that works. The mind boggles...--andreasegde (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Just following policy"
"Be bold" and "assume good faith".

This an interesting collection of words, because they say that an editor can do exactly what they like, and be backed up by this:
 * Just following policy: Shucks guys, I wus only doin' what I wus told. (Nice... It delegates responsibilty to a higher level).
 * Be bold: I can do anything I like, because that's what them good ol' boys told me to do.
 * assume good faith: Please be nice to me while I do what I like. If you say anything nasty to me about me doin' what I like, then you is not nice.--andreasegde (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Black Velvet
Your'e most welcome. I know what you mean, but it makes no difference - champagne or cider = the worst hangover of your life. I stick with draught Bass! Best, 650 Norton (1951) (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Its that time again
I currently have Thriller at FA review and Michael Jackson at Peer review. If you can help with advise or anything its much appreciated. — Realist 2  ( Who's Bad? ) 09:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Celery root
Celery root is celeriac Rojomoke (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)-


 * I thank thee kindly. :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)