User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 33

Past Masters
There is a rogue editor who insists on emphasizing the original individual Past Masters volumes instead of the now prevalent combined set originally issued as a double LP and deleting the LP sides. Please help me in averting an edit war. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--andreasegde (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--andreasegde (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
Hello, Andreasegde. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Piriczki (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one one of the extremely rare times that I can use LMAO, and mean it. :))--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:The Beatles. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cynthia Lennon
Thanks for your praise on my talk page. Due to work crunches and the like I've had less time on WP, but I do have a finite set of things that I'm looking at for this and I will get there ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cynthia Lennon
Thanks for your praise on my talk page. Due to work crunches and the like I've had less time on WP, but I do have a finite set of things that I'm looking at for this and I will get there ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please preview your edits
While I have no qualm with the quality of your edits, it is recommended that editors use the preview button before saving their work. This helps find any errors that may have been made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. When editors fail to preview their work, it clogs the watchlists of others reviewing the same articles. No one likes logging on to their account to find their watchlist clogged with 50+ edits of one individual editing an article and failing to preview. Keep in mind that a Wikipedian's overall contribution level is best measured by the quality of their work, rather than by the number of edits. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article are you referring to?--andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No answer. Oh well, I'll have to resort to using the above editor's own phrase: "Everybody has a right to have a tizzy fit every once in a while. That said, please don't tizzy on my talk page."--andreasegde (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored the talk page content so that I may respond. Please understand that not all editors contribute in the same time period that we may wish. Timely response according to one editor's preference or understanding is not universal. In reviewing your edit history, it is clear that identifying a specific article is not essential, since you consistently fail to preview your work. That said, please consider your edits to Badfinger and Maureen Starkey. Based on your contributions, the preview user warning was appropriately issued to bring this concern to your attention. As stated above, use of the preview function reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. This is simply consideration of the editing community. It's a matter of mutual respect. Anything less is simply disruptive. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  04:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Badfinger and Maureen Starkey are articles that have been languishing in B-class for far too long. If I am to be blamed for anything, it is for rolling up my sleeves and opening a tin of elbow grease. I occasionally make a mistake that is easily rectified, but the end justifies the means. I've thought about a desk job, but I don't like wearing a tie.--andreasegde (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with the quality of your edits. I think your work is a welcome asset to the encyclopedia. No one is blaming you for anything regarding the product of your work. However, the process used has become disruptive. You are doing excellent work, and yet the failure to use the preview is a continuing hindrance to your fellow editors. The user warning placed on your talk page is a respectful request to follow the suggested guidelines for editing in a community. I mean you no ill will, it's simply a matter of mutual respect. BTW, I don't like wearing a tie, either. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how my editing "process" is "disruptive" on articles that have no other editors working on them? I may be affecting your watchlist, but I don't see anything else. Maybe I should edit less? Is that what you mean?--andreasegde (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This specific user warning addresses disruption to other editors, rather than to articles. This relates to the process, rather than the product. You may not see the harm, because you do not see the watchlists of others that have been inundated with consecutive alerts of your edits that have not been previewed. Again, as you state, "[you] don't see anything..." yet that doesn't refute the disruption. For your review, here is Wikipedia's official user warning. I opted to attempt to reason with you and communicate personally rather than through the template. Another option of user warnings would be that which addresses disruption, which leads to potential blocking of your account. Here is the user warning. While I hope it helps, I have actually placed the content in the first post above. Feel free to click through any blue links to provide additional information on editing in an encyclopedic community. Thank you.


 * I make very few mistakes, and as there are usually no other editors working on the article, edit conflicts are extremely rare. Have a nice day now.--andreasegde (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Past Masters
An edit war is back regarding the Past Masters article. Please help as well as spread the word regarding the preservation of the double LP track listing which is the first issue of the now prevalent consolidated version of the Past Masters album. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cynthia Lennon
Thanks for your praise on my talk page. Due to work crunches and the like I've had less time on WP, but I do have a finite set of things that I'm looking at for this and I will get there ... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please preview your edits
While I have no qualm with the quality of your edits, it is recommended that editors use the preview button before saving their work. This helps find any errors that may have been made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. When editors fail to preview their work, it clogs the watchlists of others reviewing the same articles. No one likes logging on to their account to find their watchlist clogged with 50+ edits of one individual editing an article and failing to preview. Keep in mind that a Wikipedian's overall contribution level is best measured by the quality of their work, rather than by the number of edits. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  00:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article are you referring to?--andreasegde (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No answer. Oh well, I'll have to resort to using the above editor's own phrase: "Everybody has a right to have a tizzy fit every once in a while. That said, please don't tizzy on my talk page."--andreasegde (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I restored the talk page content so that I may respond. Please understand that not all editors contribute in the same time period that we may wish. Timely response according to one editor's preference or understanding is not universal. In reviewing your edit history, it is clear that identifying a specific article is not essential, since you consistently fail to preview your work. That said, please consider your edits to Badfinger and Maureen Starkey. Based on your contributions, the preview user warning was appropriately issued to bring this concern to your attention. As stated above, use of the preview function reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. This is simply consideration of the editing community. It's a matter of mutual respect. Anything less is simply disruptive. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  04:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Badfinger and Maureen Starkey are articles that have been languishing in B-class for far too long. If I am to be blamed for anything, it is for rolling up my sleeves and opening a tin of elbow grease. I occasionally make a mistake that is easily rectified, but the end justifies the means. I've thought about a desk job, but I don't like wearing a tie.--andreasegde (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with the quality of your edits. I think your work is a welcome asset to the encyclopedia. No one is blaming you for anything regarding the product of your work. However, the process used has become disruptive. You are doing excellent work, and yet the failure to use the preview is a continuing hindrance to your fellow editors. The user warning placed on your talk page is a respectful request to follow the suggested guidelines for editing in a community. I mean you no ill will, it's simply a matter of mutual respect. BTW, I don't like wearing a tie, either. Best regards,  Cind. amuse  08:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain how my editing "process" is "disruptive" on articles that have no other editors working on them? I may be affecting your watchlist, but I don't see anything else. Maybe I should edit less? Is that what you mean?--andreasegde (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This specific user warning addresses disruption to other editors, rather than to articles. This relates to the process, rather than the product. You may not see the harm, because you do not see the watchlists of others that have been inundated with consecutive alerts of your edits that have not been previewed. Again, as you state, "[you] don't see anything..." yet that doesn't refute the disruption. For your review, here is Wikipedia's official user warning. I opted to attempt to reason with you and communicate personally rather than through the template. Another option of user warnings would be that which addresses disruption, which leads to potential blocking of your account. Here is the user warning. While I hope it helps, I have actually placed the content in the first post above. Feel free to click through any blue links to provide additional information on editing in an encyclopedic community. Thank you.


 * "Welcome to Wikipedia?" I've been here five years. I make very few mistakes, and as there are usually no other editors working on the article, edit conflicts are extremely rare. Have a nice day now.--andreasegde (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the phrase "Welcome to Wikipedia" anywhere, except for your statement above. Nobody is indicating that you are new to Wikipedia. The template above is standard. The part that applies to you is the mention of clogging up recent changes and the page history. These are the areas where your edits have been disruptive. And honestly, the claim that you make very few mistakes is erroneous. The failure to preview your work is an error or mistake, if you will, on your part. In this regard, you consistently make mistakes to the detriment of the community. Your utter disregard of this matter is inappropriate and disheartening. I was under the impression that you were a person of maturity enabled with the ability to reason and effectively communicate with others. I was obviously wrong.  Cind. amuse  08:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this conversation is now over.--andreasegde (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Lennon vandal's back
can you block him/her? 69.231.218.20 Hotcop2 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't block the user, but I know somebody who can.--andreasegde (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a ganders.--andreasegde (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you nip another edit war?
Now Memphisto wants to delete the significant fact that Past Masters was the final regular release (not counting limited editions) Beatle album released as a vinyl record. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Past Masters
Hi Andreasegde. I hope you agree that since I started editing Past Masters, we have seen a improvement in the article. It is a shame that a certain other user seems to have ownership issues, and is quick to revert nearly every one of my edits. memphisto 18:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're both doing a good job, but don't forget the article was there before you, and will still be there after, for years. You both have to find the references, because they win all arguments.--andreasegde (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I was influenced by the collection's compiler Mark Lewisohn when he stated in the original 1988 liner notes' conclusion: "...Don't fall under the illusion that these songs are mere 'fillers'. 'She Loves You', 'I Want To Hold Your Hand', 'I Feel Fine', 'We Can Work It Out', 'Hey Jude' and many others like them didn't exactly wallow in the lower reaches of the chart." when I deleted the word 'rarities' as a description of the compilation. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brian Epstein looking to the left.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Brian Epstein looking to the left.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Without You
Hi there Andre. So I'm working on all things Mariah Carey and have a proposition for you, hear me out. I noticed you worked with Badfinger as well, so what would you say to splitting the article for GA. I'll do the Mariah and if you'd like the Harry version and you do the Badfinger section. Tell me how that sounds. Thanks-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   02:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's going to take a lot of work. I'll see what I can do.--andreasegde (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So if you are interested, would you like to discuss it in more detail. Perhaps due dates, who does what and similar things?-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   22:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Anything I can find by way of references I'll put in, and correct the references already there.--andreasegde (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy
Yes thank you! Weather great. Hope you don't object to my grammatical corrections... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.120.55 (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I quite agree, but I think you will see from my contributions, I don't do vandalism either! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.120.55 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite right.--andreasegde (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:Sepp Blatter, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  Sandstein  17:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Andrew, speaking as one, Sandstein is about as nice admin as can be found and he does have a point - our opinions of BLP article subjects are not to be noted on the project. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don’t know, I think maybe Andrew pulled his punches there somewhat. Can’t one call a cunt a cunt on a talkpage? --Patthedog (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes, you can. You do get blocked and very likely a handsome, wise, not too modest but compassionate Oversighter will remove the edit from being seen from the history, meaning a sanction for no visible result, but, yes, you certainly can. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone you must know then. Blocked from Wikipedia? Turn that screw, you bastard! (Kidding BTW)--Patthedog (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (grin) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"As bent as a nine-bob note - 'Nuff said". That's what they said on CNN, honest. Can I sell you a second-hand car? Vicar's wife had it, low mileage. :)) BTW, if any revelations are made at a later date about a certain person, I will feel fully vindicated, and will expect a gold star and a slice of cake. I thank you. :)--andreasegde (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

In use
I'm doing some major work so I posted the "In use" tag. Is it OK if I save my work and then we redo yours?  Will Beback   talk    07:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * OK! --andreasegde (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry for taking so long with the "in use" tag. I'll be another hour or two, and will make sure to take it off when I'm done.   Will Beback    talk    07:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem at all; take as long as you want.--andreasegde (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And thanks also for your nice note. I hope these edits will make the article more readable and the events more comprehensible. I'll next muster up the citations for the "legacy" issue the reviewer mentioned.   Will Beback    talk    07:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay-dokey.--andreasegde (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

GA
Keep up the brilliant work!  SilkTork  *Tea time 11:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Good work, Andreasegde. Thanks for your many improvements to the article.   Will Beback    talk    12:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Badfinger
My gosh, this talk page is so tidy! Anyway, here's the reference you requested: http://www.starclustermusic.de/artists/badfinger/jackson/bio/jackson1.htm --ZincOrbie (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref now in. I know it's 'tidy' here, but it's because I loathe scrolling down miles and miles of comments. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 34 Montagu Square, Marylebone
The article 34 Montagu Square, Marylebone you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:34 Montagu Square, Marylebone for comments about the article. Well done! Pyrotec (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marvellous. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9
 * again Calvin  &bull; 9 9 9  16:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Swarcliffe
Could you (a) include edit summaries and (b) consolidate your edits somewhat? 97 edits in a few hours, with no edit summaries, can make it difficult for other editors to see what you're doing. Thanks. PamD (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you not seen what I have been doing, exactly? Raising an article from stub-class to a B? How many times do you think this article has been worked on, and how much? It's in the nether regions of Nowhere's-ville, and I have given my time and energy to improving it. I will admit, had it been a Beatles' article, I would agree, but it isn't. Read the article before I started working on it, and then read it now, and all will be revealed. BTW, I am an experienced editor here, and I know what I'm doing, ta very much. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As an added note, I must say that it is disheartening to see so many 'Stub-class' articles (especially from the ones who complain). A bit of work (or a few hours), could improve them immeasurably, if only people were so inclined. Complaining about the number of edits one does and complaining about edit summaries is akin to asking a runner not to break the world record, because it might upset the poor person that has to rewrite the record book. It's a paper encyclopaedia, and this is the modern world. 'Nuff said.--andreasegde (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, perhaps it was a rather routine reaction to a common couple of problems but inappropriate in this context: you're doing a mass of very constructive edits, most of which could just have had edit summary "expand", and you're not one of the editors who edits practically a letter at a time to expand their edit count! You're doing great work on this article and giving good sources for it all.  (Not sure whether the jibe about stubs was aimed at me... I create articles, or stubs, for a variety of reasons: sometimes just a stub, sometimes more, depending on what has moved me to create it.  A stub, especially one with a link to a decent source, is generally better than nothing.) PamD (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Nice to see someone who is taking an interest in places in Yorkshire.--andreasegde (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

images
Hi, I noticed that you'd added an image with a reference for the attribution. As far as I know this isn't standard practice. Clicking on the image links to the attribution, and this is considered adequate as acknowledgment.

But I wondered whether to expand the caption by adding the date the photo was taken... was a bit surprised it claimed to have been taken today, looked at the Geograph version and saw it was taken 2008. I think that in copying it from Geograph to Commons the original date should be kept - otherwise you could end up with something ludicrous like a photo being "dated" after the death of the photographer or the demolition of the subject. You might like to check back on the procedures for this; I notice that you processed the image too, and I'm just not sure about the rules for how all of that gets recorded. Good luck with it all. PamD (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'll have a look at that. Thanks "for the heads up", as our cousins across the water like to say.--andreasegde (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.--andreasegde (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Swarcliffe Street Map
Is this any good? It's a screen clip from OpenStreetMap. It might help to pinpoint some locations. --Harkey (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I love you. What would you like for Christmas? Honest, go on, anything at all. :))--andreasegde (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Barnstar. Just buzz if there is anything you think I might be able to help with. I'll be thinking about the Christmas box!! Good luck.--Harkey (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. I will now take all of the articles I have nominated for a GA review off the list. At some time in the future (when some good and reliable GA reviewers return after their summer holidays), I will nominate them again. The GA reviews have become a joke.--andreasegde (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened?
You used to have one of the best senses of humour around WP. Now you just seem to get irritated by everything. Trust me, this isn't worth it. In particular, getting stressed over the GA process isn't worth it. This is supposed to be enjoyable (it isn't justifiable on any other basis). If it isn't anymore, stop doing it and start smelling the roses somewhere ... Wasted Time R (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The last two review experiences would have tested the patient of a saint with a very high pain threshold. Put it this way... you've waited weeks for a someone to fix your TV, and then a kid comes along with a big hammer and says, "Where is it?" Then your roof leaks, so a kid turns up and starts stomping all over it in hiking boots. An older (and wiser) reviewer stands at the front gate and says, "He's not doing that right". You say, "Can you help?" The sage reviewer replies, "Nah, I'm too busy watching him not doing it right". Sometimes the only thing to do is have a really good scream, and lock yourself in the basement for a bit, no?--andreasegde (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Think of the GA process as an especially fickle wheel of fortune. Sometimes it will take forever to spin before stopping, sometimes it will stop right away. Sometimes it will land on an expert reviewer, sometimes on a rube. Sometimes on someone who makes a hundred comments, sometimes on someone who makes only a few.  Sometimes on someone who won't agree with your vision of the subject or who will want to change the article to match their own vision; but sometimes on sometime who will pass it untouched.  And so on. Hell, I've had two articles reviewed by a sock who adopts the persona of a patronising teacher who gives out 'grades'.  You just have to accept what the fates send you and not get bothered by it ...   Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I sympathise... I suppose I'm guilty of not reviewing pages myself, but the thought of scrutinizing the GAR minutiae is on the dark side of the moon in my case. There is one particular case where I was tempted, but the mistakes are endless. I did have to correct kids' homework for a year; it was exhausting. Maybe I have been concentrating on the music pages for too long, which is why I have turned my attention to suburban districts, and the improvement thereof. Que sera, sera...--andreasegde (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reluctantly decided to nominate Swarcliffe for a GAR. Let's hope...--andreasegde (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just love how you keep talking about me! Its not only cute but pathetic, obviously you cry whenever your GA articles fail. How old are you again? I'm only 18 and I don't even bitch like that when my GAN fails LOLZ! :) AJona1992 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks.--Canadian Reject (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything is better with pie.

 * I thank you Tvoz. Can I put some custard on it? Mmmm... :) --andreasegde (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It would have to be Bird's Custard Mmmmmmmm.. --Patthedog (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Could there be any other? :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for the custard, and then maybe you can pie someone! Rupert, where are you?  Tvoz / talk 05:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Swarcliffe
My sincere apologies for my mistake with the comma. You are obviously offended at the well meaning and constructive edits that are being made to the article. As it stands, there is a lot of ambiguity in the prose and other editors are trying to be supportive not negative. Rudeness and aggression are not called for: "Do you know what you are doing? You changed "bought and added", to "bought then added". Ever felt in need of a good comma?" --Harkey (talk) 19:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * They're not ""well-meaning" (correct) and they're not very constructive when they're wrong. BTW, if you don't come from Yorkshire, you might not know what humour is. As it is, I now have to go back and correct a lot of supposed well-meaning edits that haven't helped at all. What is this? Don't people have their own stubs to work on? You can take that as humour as well.--andreasegde (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Try reading WP:OWN. --Harkey (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try using two colons when replying, and read a book about English grammar. Do I care?--andreasegde (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be getting upset by what is really good advice. I have worked alongside Harkey who is a very helpful editor and who was trying to help. You have done such a lot of research but the prose really does need a copyedit if you want to get it anywhere near GA standard.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Swarcliffe St Luke's church". Another classic, by your friend. If this goes on any longer, I'll just take the article off the list. --andreasegde (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good idea as it stands now.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ho-Ho-Ho. Over the last week, I have worked my rectum off to take this article from a stub to something worthwhile. I wonder what you have done? Let's see... uhhhh... I wonder why a member of the "WikiProject Greater Manchester" would be interested in a very small estate in Yorkshire? Don't answer that, I might buy a round.--andreasegde (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I really wasn't joking. I have already corrected an error regarding St Luke's Church. I understand you have put in a lot of work but I'd stand back and take a look at some GA settlent articles and read WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements as you have already been advised. The article needs a Geography section and galleries are frowned on for a start. And this editor worked in Leeds for over 20 years and lived in .........Yorkshire for over 30.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I was born there, beat that. ;)) You either work with people, or against them. Working with people is helping as best as one can, and not adopting an attitude, or defending "friends" that make mistakes. The mistakes I have had to correct have not helped at all. This article is up for a GAR. Now tell me, why was it not interesting enough before?--andreasegde (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you care to point out my mistakes? You won't accept help, that's the trouble and as far as I can see both Harkey, PamD and I are trying to help. I have noticed it on the Yorkshire watchlist and noticed editors I respect, so I looked in.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been here too long to get involved in that old game. BTW, "You won't accept help"? Do me a lemon, because it's laughable. I wonder who said, "I really don't know why I edit." Please, answer one question for me, which is, how many articles have you taken to a GA rating? (I'll bet you won't...)--andreasegde (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Six, all settlements.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Try using colons in the correct order to format a response. I'll check your GAs. BTW, do you know how many I've done? Go on, guess. :)) Uhhh, this is interesting. I'm checking your edit history, and it's hard to find a GA article that you actually nominated and took through a review. Could you help? Go on, give me a clue.--andreasegde (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Amateurs
I've had enough of them.--andreasegde (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary
Your edit summary is unhelpful. I worded it the way I did because I had evidence of the decision but not of the closure date. Please be more WP:CIVIL to other editors. PamD (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit is based on how things are done here. Your edit would have prompted a "by who?" question. It does NOT allow "I had evidence of the decision but not of the closure date", which is not acceptable.-andreasegde (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Swarcliffe housing estate.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Swarcliffe housing estate.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Swarcliffe
I have again removed the book cover image. You first added it back arguing that "It is the only book written about the area, by a person who actually lives there. If Harding had his own page, it would be in it." The book may be significant, and I am not saying that it should not be discussed, I'm saying that what the cover looks like is not all that signficant- the usage does not meet NFCC#8. The book cover is not needed unless the cover itself is in some way significant- and the same would be true in an article about the author. Yes, it is generally accepted that a single cover image in the article about the book meets the NFCC, but this does not extend to other articles, whether or not an article on the book exists. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A rather convoluted way of saying that you don't want it in. The best is this: "Yes, the book is significant, but that does not mean that its cover is". If that doesn't make anyone laugh, it should.--andreasegde (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Helpme on Talk:Swarcliffe
You placed a request on Talk:Swarcliffe, but it just says,

If you don't stop this bollards, I will contact an admin to sort it out. You syntax is extremely clumsy, and you are not interested in discussing changes on the talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what help you wanted - but, anyway, it's best to deal with helpme requests here, on your own user talk page.

Therefore, please could you say what you want (here). Thanks,  Chzz  ► 19:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I thank you. I need help with an editor that does not want to co-operate on the Swarcliffe article, and insists on changing text (with references) without talking about said changes on the talk page first. The article was up for a GAR, but because of the changes I had to take it off the GAR list. The editor in question has spent a lot of time on the "Politics" section (double-linking), but now seems to be intent on changing text that is confirmed by the references, because it does not suit the editor's personal opinions. The editor's syntax is clumsy, but this does not seem to matter, even after I pointed out the various mistakes. Yes, I know that my replies were testy, but after working on it for a considerable amount of time, it is frustrating to see it being changed with such a careless attitude.--andreasegde (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the name of the editor?  Chzz  ► 19:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor is PamD (talk). For an example of the editor's work, look at Leeds Country Way.--andreasegde (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. I see there is currently a discussion on Talk:Swarcliffe about the sentence concerning a church, but the last edit there is actually PamD making a suggestion. Do you feel that discussion could continue there, or, do you think you are 'deadlocked' on that issue?

I see there are a lot of other comments there, from PamD - so, they do seem prepared to discuss the changes; thus, normal procedure would be to talk it out there - remembering to comment on the content, not the other editor. In the event you can't reach agreement, the best thing would be to ask for further outside opinions - but to do that, you do need to fix on one specific concern at a time - such as, "I think it should be THIS, but another user disagrees - I would welcome more opinions" - and then, put a neutral note on some project group (such as WikiProject Yorkshire) or, possibly, on a noticeboard, to get more input.

I don't think that the user has tried to force any changes through without discussion? Unless I am missing something?

I can understand it being frustrating when an article you've worked on is changed - but, I'm sure this can be sorted out, if we discuss the changes calmly.  Chzz  ► 20:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the editor in question just changes things without talking (and most importantly, agreeing) on the talk page. This article was on the point of a GAR, but the frequent changes made that impossible, as it looked like edit-warring. If only the editor(s) would talk about the changes first, this problem could have been avoided. Looking at the pages said editors have written, it is hard to see how they can know what a modern GA review entails (it was easier in the past, wasn't it?) The Leeds Country Way article being a prime example of that inexperience. I don't want to say this, but I have worked on many GA articles, and I have a lot of experience here. If only editors with less experience could learn how to 'learn', it would benefit Wikipedia. I can only recommend that the editor be 'advised' to talk things through first, before plunging in to the deep end of rash edits.--andreasegde (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

OK; I see that it was listed on GAN on 29 July and removed as "failed" on 6 Aug  but, I can't see where it was discussed, or who failed it; there is no Talk:Swarcliffe/GA1. Can you enlighten me, about what happened/where?  Chzz  ► 20:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; I see now - you removed it yourself! Well, I assure you - a GA-reviewer should not decline a review just because there are lots of recent edits; they'll only decline it if there is an ongoing dispute. Still, it's your choice to have withdrawn it. It's unfair to blame others for it being removed; that's not what happened.

Anyway; I've made a few comments on the talk page, and I hope we can all work together now to sort out any concerns. I don't, honestly, see anything problematic about PamD's edits; xe seems willing to discuss. I think, really, you might be taking it rather too personally, which is understandable having worked on it a lot. I will ask the user to ensure they discuss things. But, still - there's no deadline. I'm sure it can be resolved.  Chzz  ► 20:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I took it off the GAR list myself, as I know it would never have passed a GAR with the problems it was going through. I thought it had a very good chance (as I had worked on it for a whole week), but the deluge of changes (and my reverts) made it impossible. The early problems were mostly about double-linking and too much emphasis on the "Politics" section. (I did wonder about this, as I tried to point out the problems about predicting the future of elections, but I was ignored). Then the changes included supposed problems about whether the Wilson estate had been "taken in", "bought by", or "taken over" by the Leeds City Council. This seemed to be of paramount importance to the editors in question, but seemed to me to be concentrating on minuscule details. Maybe they just wanted to make a contribution, no matter how wrong. Oh dear, I have just read "we can all work together now". Hmmm...--andreasegde (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK - well, I can certainly look over the article more. I haven't actually read through it properly, yet. I've done quite a lot of GA-reviews myself, so I do know what to look for. I'll have a proper read of it; it might be tomorrow before I can comment though.  Chzz  ► 21:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to look at the article, I am asking you to look at the changes and how they were implemented, without agreement.--andreasegde (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, well, in that regard - anyone can make a good-faith edit to an article without getting agreement, unless there are special circumstances (such as, an Arbcom injunction) - and, any other editor can undo it. At that point, discussion is required. But, there is no policy that forces users to seek agreement before making a change; it's part of the fundamental WP:BOLD policy, and further detailed in WP:BRD. However, as I said - I've already asked the other editor to be extra-careful in discussing any further changes. So, I think all we can do there is, wait and see how things progress; at this time, I don't think any other actions would help. Of course, if you disagree - or indeed if I have missed some inappropriate conduct on behalf of another user - we can deal with that.  Chzz  ► 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank you very much, so we can only hope it works, but I am already experiencing other edits that are strange. Is this what happens to 'Places' articles? I should have stayed with the crazy world of 'Music'. :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It can happen anywhere. Geo places certainly do attract a lot of new editors - who want to add info about their home town, and so forth. But...music was easier? Really? I'm guessing you didn't edit in the field of popular-culture music then, because some of those articles are incredibly disputed!
 * Anyway - yes, let's see how it goes. Sometimes, the process of making a really great article can be tough, but thrashing out problems - hard as it is at the time - usually does improve things. I've been in some tremendously frustrating disputes, which made me want to quit altogether - but, if I look at the articles now, I have to admit that the process did finally result in a better article. Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, and so forth. These things are sent to try us, I guess.  Chzz  ► 21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I will add one bit of advice - if you ever find yourself actually getting angry - just step away from the keyboard, for a while. And/or, consider leaving the article alone for a few days, and working on other things. Never reply when you're actually feeling anger; as tempting as it might be to vent, it's never productive. That's just friendly advice, from my own experience in similar cases. At the end of the day, it's only a wiki; easy to forget that, when embroiled in a dispute. Best,  Chzz  ► 21:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do know that feeling, but I will ask you one thing; if somebody keeps slapping you in the face for five minutes, and says that you are wrong (when you know you're not), how long would you last? :))--andreasegde (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't be able to keep slapping me, because I'd have walked away.  Chzz  ► 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussions relating to Swarcliffe
I'm doing all I can to help resolve matters relating to the article.

I have taken the liberty of rearranging some comments on the talk page - striving to stick carefully to WP:TPO. Each edit I made is explained in edit-summary.

In order to keep the discussions on-track and collegiate, I ask you to note the following;

Please stick to discussing content, and making constructive comments. Do not disparage other editors with comments like, sounding like someone foaming at the mouth. Please use meaningful, helpful headings instead of e.g. "Rubbish". Avoid sarcasm, such as calling a section "Amazing", or saying For a fine example of a GA article, look at Leeds Country Way, Marvellous.

Please assume good faith. See also WP:TPG.

Now, let's put that behind us, and get on with improving articles - OK?  Chzz  ► 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To be really honest, I wonder if the Swarcliffe article—because it's not one of the multitude of Geography/Places stubs about various subjects—has attracted too much attention from people wanting to flex their literary muscles? Hmmm... You might think my comments are sarcastic, but I'm just backing off from warring, and enjoying myself with a bit of humour. I'm not going to revert anything, but I must be allowed to comment about what I think is the diluting of an article that was almost a GA. That's the really sad part.


 * Anyway, over the last week or so, I have contributed 889 edits to an article that was a stub. Apparently, this did not mean anything at all to the editors that felt they knew better, and did not understand the meaning of agreement before change. I put this down to the number of stub articles they have created, and seem to be very proud of. Nobody argues about a stub article. If the editors involved do not react to my comments, sarcastic or not, it means they are ignoring them, which will please both parties, I suppose. Does this sound like a situation that is not the best for a Wikipedia article? I think not, but we'll see what the tide brings in.--andreasegde (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Amateurs
I think that anybody who is actually proud of creating a stub article should be slapped with a fish and told to grow up.--andreasegde (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Curb your elitism. Writing for Wikipedia isn't easy, it's an acquired skill. I'm quite proud of my stubs.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you proud of your local bus stop? Should I start a stub about my favourite colour? Stubs are a waste of space, and a drain on Wikipedia's resources.--andreasegde (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, this particular stub: Magic: The Gathering – Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012, would never pass a GAR. I suppose that doesn't matter very much, does it? Are you here to edit your favourite game, or to create something encyclopedic? On second thoughts, don't answer that one. :))--andreasegde (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

'''Stub articles are a drain on Wikipedia's resources. They should be deleted after six months if they are not accepted as a Good Article (GA). Allowing them to be here encourages lazy editing.'''--andreasegde (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think that all the one line articles on villages with six people in them are not worth keeping, but to say that all stubs are useless, well that's just yelling loudly without a whole bunch behind it. I didn't set out to create a GA, I set out to create a well referenced and relatively complete article. Considering that a) I'm not an article worker, and b) I did exactly what I set out to do, I am, regardless of your opinion, quite proud of my work.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tone it down a bit please
You are being unneeedingly confrontational when you interact with other editors. This comment stood out in particular, but there are many more like it in your editing history. Please adopt a less confrontational tone when you interact with others. It is rude and it doesn't help to build a collaborative atmosphere that Wikipedia needs in order to survive. -- Jayron  32  01:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You know that I actually came to this page a while back to say pretty much the same thing? Well, I got... err... distracted. Well, I'm not quite neutral now, but Andreasegde you should really consider what Jayron32 is saying carefully.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  01:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Block
Can someone block this editor for disruptive editing in the form of trolling combined with incivility. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just warned him above, Ryan. Lets see how he responds to that before jumping straight to the block.  It would be nice if he corrected his own behavior.  -- Jayron  32  01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)