User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 5

Julia Lennon
Hi, I restored the info on Julia's parents, this time with citations. I'd love to be able to link John with Lord Stanley, but it does not appear that anybody's been able to do it yet. Thanks! -- Butseriouslyfolks 20:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Glad to help with such an important set of articles! -- Butseriouslyfolks 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now a GA. Congratulations - I'll probably come back to Wikipedia more permanently in a few weeks, and wait till everything's died down. Nice to know some people think I'm ok! LuciferMorgan 04:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WE surely do. andreasegde 09:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
Of course I know! I know because I went looking and found this page Very Frequently Asked Questions just a few minutes ago. Since, however, it is "your" article I thought I'd let you do it and take the consequences if it all goes wrong ! Curly Haired Susan 20:54 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh bugger. If I make a mistake, Crestville will take the 'urine' (again)... Ho-hum. andreasegde 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it. Let the trivia zealots boil their heads in oil... andreasegde 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean... it worked!? Yay! Mr Large Big 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it did. I will now celebrate with a 'Zipfer'. andreasegde 21:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, it is not my article. I really hate one editor (no names - no pack drill) who writes things like, "Articles I have given birth to"... Is he up his own rectum, or wha', la? andreasegde 21:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done! That's put a Spaniel in The Works! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 01:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you do not care for the mystery editors choice of phraseology, rather than the individual. Also, the last AfD was the third! Can we find the intervening AfD and note it was also thrown out. LessHeard vanU 15:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ps. Some anon/one use IP vandal tried to attack the article and was quickly reverted. I wonder who that may have been?

BTW, it is not my'' article. I really hate one editor (no names - no pack drill) who writes things like, "Articles I have given birth to"... Is he up his own rectum, or wha', la?'': WQould this have anything to do with the similar list I have on my page? What's wrong with that? I create articles. It's what I do. I'm like a father to them.--Crestville 16:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a massive difference between "Stuff what I done - Mummy, Mummy, Look what I've made", which is very humourous, and "Articles I have given birth to" (plus a lot of other ghastly stuff about how wonderful and unique he is). No, it's not you, Daddy Crestville... :) andreasegde 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's alright then.--Crestville 16:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now included the real second AfD template on the talkpage (I just nicked the format of the first one and amended the details - that is how I usually work...) LessHeard vanU 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Genuinely chuffed about both Barnstars. Thank you. I have also tendered my apologies to those I conversed with extreme prejudice at for the language. It really isn't the proper way to handle matters... LessHeard vanU 20:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. WE all agree with you. andreasegde 21:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hopsitals - (Hopsitals??)
Well I now live in Bradford, so if I get ill I'll go to St. Lukes or BRI. People won't visit me there, not because of a pub, but because they're both located in awful, awful parts of town.--Crestville 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. There are a few lovely little streets in Brat'fud, but they messed up on the pedestrian subways in the 70s. I had a car radio nicked in 1998 from the car park at the BRI, or was it the other one?. (Smash and grab...) Ahhh... memories, like the corners of my sock drawer. andreasegde 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your Good Article nominations
Hello. I've been following the discussions on the talk page there. I have a proposal for you that will both help clear the backlog and get our articles reviewed. I don't know if this is acceptable practice, but I personally don't see any reason why it wouldn't be OK. I will review one of the articles you nominated if you will review one of mine. I nominated Khmer language on Feb 4th. If you can review that one, I will review your nomination of Freddie Lennon. I have not contributed to that article (or any Beatles-related article for that matter) although I am a big Beatles afficionado and trivia buff. For the sake of transparancy, we have to be clear that this is not at all an agreement to pass each other's articles, simply to review them in order to process them and help clear them from the backlog. In fact, I would appreciate full candor as I would eventually really like to expand this article more and take it through Peer Review and FAC one day.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I advise against this procedure. I have faith both of you are good, honest editors, but more cynical Wikipedians may see this as "If you pass my article for GA, I'll pass yours for GA". I'm not accusing any of you of anything, but you know how some may percieve this. LuciferMorgan 10:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, we wern't even thinking of that, as WilliamThweatt said. Have a look at WilliamThweatt's page and you will see that I told him I would definitely fail his article, so I wouldn't review it. Thanks for the advice, though. LuciferMorgan is a "steely-eyed missile man" ('Apollo 13' film...) andreasegde 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whaaa?? There are cynical Wikipedians?--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I neither started nor wrote the article, I've just expanded it, cleaned up the English and added some refs and sources.  I knew it still needed a lot of work, but nobody else was seriously working on it (except vandals).  The GA nom seemed to be the only way to get some feedback.  I will try to implement your suggestions before somebody actually gets to reviewing the article (at the current rate, I ought to have a few months to do this :-)).  By the way, I'm really liking the Freddie Lennon article.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 02:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The beat-less 'article'
So, it's now the Beatles, is it? Every mention of The Band should be changed (in the middle of a sentence) to the Band. "At the gig, Bob Dylan and the Band.... which means his 'backing band', and not The Band. Explanation:


 * "I saw the Band tonight."
 * "Which band?"
 * "The Band!"


 * "I watched the beetles tonight."
 * In your kitchen again?"
 * No, The Beatles!

It's a question of emphasis... andreasegde 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

the beat - les
That is fecking brill! It's also irrefutable! bob Dylan & the Band


 * Pass it on, liebling... Sir Sean 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So find an authority! Some style reference that tops Chicago, The Times and The Gruniard! I also ingested the truth that proper nouns are capitalised (and that band names are proper nouns) along with my (big) Mams milk, and I went out and looked for hard facts to back my stance... I didn't find them! I also signposted the debate in the Newsletters (yes, it is I that cobbles together that tome for the most part) and when there was no evidence presented at the appropriate place I said, "Fair do's. You lot have put together a better argument!" and signed away my soul.
 * I also imbibed with my mothers milk that Pluto is a planet. It seems I was wrong there, too. LessHeard vanU 21:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have no fear, Dear LessHeard... I have read that a lot of editors concerned with 'The/the Beatles' problem have cited English/American Newspapers. "Man Bites Dog", for example (which implies that the man bites the dog every day = wrong). They do that to save ink, and to make the headlines fit the page. "A man bit a dog yesterday" doesn't look so good...


 * Anyway; We all learned how to speak before we learned how to write. (Ugg, uggg...) We (Brits—as you know) make a verbal definition between when we say "the", and when we say "the"—pronounced Thee Beatles, and not insects (a lot of people forget that use of the definite article)—which means there are no others like them. It gives a special emphasis on the use of a title.


 * Need I say more? I bet I will have to... :) andreasegde 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I would have to do this, and I will: If you write "the Beatles", it must mean that there were other "Beatles" bands in other cities. If you write "The Beatles", then it must be "The Beatles" from Liverpool. "The Band" from America/Canada is also the same. It is called "The definite article", which means it is definite. andreasegde 22:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you. So find the fucking reference book that trounces the style books. It is the same as citations, we may know that the Lennon first learned banjo chords but you still have to find the book that says it to use it as a reference. We may know that definitive articles and or proper nouns should be capitalised, but you have to find the tome which says it. Simple. LessHeard vanU 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such tome. It is called English. We learned it when we were babes, and it is still changing... The style books are all written by Americans (sorry, Americans) because they desire style. Check the Manual of Style page - it has NO references from a book. Why should we "give up the ghost" under pressure from our American friends?


 * I am not being aggressive here - I am only reacting against the idea that "Heavy industry" should not be written as "heavy industry", and that the Beatles should be "The Beatles". The emphasis is paramount. andreasegde 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you would capitalize the "b" in "band" (or the "t" in "the") for emphasis? I guess I would have used italics or underscoring instead (in much the same way that you did above). I agree that it would be quite natural (even for us heathen Americans) to pronounce "the" as "thee" when there's a point to be made such as the one you make above ("No, Fred, the Band, not the band"). But in writing I believe the usual way of marking the emphasis is with italics or underscoring. Besides, do you always say thee with "Beatles" or only when it's for emphasis? It would seem that if it's the latter, then you would be suggesting a sometimes-lowercase/sometimes-uppercase "t" rule, depending on whether you're in a mood to emphasize that it's the one and only Beatles, you know, the ones from Liverpool, that is. Seems like that's not going to come up very often on Wikipedia.

Incidentally, we Americans don't actually have a monopoly on style manuals -- see, e.g., Henry Watson Fowler, Lynne Truss, Hart's Rules (see generally Linguistic prescription) or the various in-house style manuals I cited (Guardian and Times) -- though it may be true that we're style seekers, I don't know, I'll leave that judgment to you. Moreover, I thought that the citations I gave to British authority supported the notion that it was actually British usage -- not your American friends -- that supplied the "pressure."McTavidge 05:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At present, I'm reading Paul McCartney by Alan Clayson, and The Beatles is capitalised throughout, including the index - what style is that? Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 13:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, The Beatles is also a registered Trademark (Logo: "The" Beatles) and has been used as such since 8 November 1963 - Applicaton For Trademark Registration Claim No: 187978, and should be treated the same as Coca Cola Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave


 * English Language, and it Use, is Evolving constantly. What was Once Correct, may now be Found to be Imperfect. For Instance, the Style of the Nineteenth Century is no longer Applicable. Nore if th'Styls of Earliere Ages.
 * There are very few Rules on Wikipedia; and one of them is verifiability.
 * British English is the Policy standard, and two of the style manuals cited are UK based.
 * As noted, the official Beatles website and those of Macca and Ringo use the lowercase. Again, as previously noted, other Wikipedia articles for contemporary British groups use the lowercase.
 * Unless it can be proven that lowercase is wrong, and that does require an authority, then it seems that the previous style is obsolete.
 * I concluded that the proponents had established their case. Since I was the only non-proponent involved in the debate, and a regular contributor to the Beatles Project, and had previously argued vigorously for retaining the capitalisation, I am a little peeved that after all the effort I went to and the degree of proof I required before making the decision it is being challenged. LessHeard vanU 15:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, whatever. I really think that there more important things to do. As Vera said, The Beatles™ is a trademark, so if we write the Beatles, then should we use the ™. I think Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave has found the absolute proof. andreasegde 16:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of the TM marker (or (R) symbol) is most appropriate when the owner of the trademark is doing the writing and wants to remind the world not to infringe on the trademark, but it is generally not required for other people to use the marker.McTavidge 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks McTavidge (accepted) but they did not trademark the Beatles. It was The Beatles. I know this a typical Wiki problem, and I hope I have not hurt anyone's feelings. andreasegde 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen their US trademark registration as well and grant that they filed "The" along with "Beatles". But there's a difference between what trademark lawyers and regular writers will do and need to do.  As I noted in the discussion previously, from their standpoint this is all about marketing and brand management, and that's fine for them, but we're not them and we're not in charge of burnishing their image.  Their decision to file a trademark registration using a nonstandard capitalization convention doesn't necessarily compel anyone else to follow suit.McTavidge 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Trademark
Put up or shut up?

This document is irrefutable proof (even though the writer uses "the Beatles" title): An auction for the document used to register the name "The Beatles" back in 1964 Game, Set, and Match. andreasegde 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, McTavidge, but it was trademarked in 1964. What "regular writers will do and need to do" is no defence, and is a POV. "doesn't necessarily compel", is also not a case for changing it. "I fought the Law and the Law won", as The Clash sang. I like coca-Cola, BTW. :) andreasegde 21:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed this is the document I found when it was being sold, I quoted it on a talk page and Kingbonk said "Fuck it it don't matter cos the policy's bin decided", or words to that effect! And yes, the entire Trademark includes the word "The" the docko I found was much bigger than this one! Mine's a large Voddie & Pepsie


 * Put your link in (bigger picture). We have won this one. They can't disagree with a written fact. andreasegde 22:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a Sotheby's post it's been taken down, but it's the same document. Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope so - I've been observing this argument from the sidelines, and support you through and through. Let irrefutable proof win the day! Liamshaw 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wearing me out. You have given us "irrefutable proof" that the Beatles and their lawyers like capitalizing the article, not any evidence of what any language authorities think.McTavidge 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Beatles and their lawyers..." What more do you need? Style is subjective, but the Law is the Law. andreasegde 06:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aye, BUT IT'S THE WAY YOU TELL EM! Frank Carson's Knickers

Your GA nomination of Neil Aspinall
The article Neil Aspinall you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Neil Aspinall for things needed to be addressed. Mtmelendez (TALK 00:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Neil Aspinall
The article Neil Aspinall you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Article for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Mtmelendez (TALK 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I took so long. I'm a slow typer!! Congrats!- Mtmelendez (TALK 18:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

creation of 59.128.65.192
if you were trying to create User talk:59.128.65.192 then some more useful content was required. I would suggest remaining calm, and not swearing at others on your own talk page. "Sod off, dick head", hardly NPOV MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So you know what "sod off", and "dickhead" mean. Not many people do. They are not swear words. If you are admonishing me for replying to a vandal that left a snide link for the "reproductive system" on my talk page (calling me a cunt and a prick, if you can read between the user's lines) then you are defending a vandal. The user has no name, did not sign in, and attacked me personally. Do you really want to defend that? Personally - and I have a history of being very co-operative on these pages - I think the user should be blocked and kicked up the rectum. As you can see, I am not very happy. andreasegde 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept that the crude addition of the reproductive system template was rude, and possibly an attack, but that doesn't mean you can retaliate, two wrongs make exactly that ; two wrongs. I'm not trying to insinuate that you are a bad editor, on the contrary: I believe you to be a very good editor, but even the best of us can loose our tempers, yet it is important to not stoop to his/her level and break WP:NPA. Also, although I wouldn't class sod off as an oath I would still class dickhead as one, even if a minor one.
 * Wishing you never are at the sharp end of any personal vandalism again,

Yours,MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Duck!
Ringo Starr Incoming Friendly Fire! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Consensus, The Beatles and Project Policy
I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.

The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.

Belated reaction
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.

My Comments
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.

Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.

WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.

My Observations
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponents of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.

More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.

My Conclusion(s)
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.

I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See You Andrew
I don't know about you kidda, but there's no way I'm staying here after being called a feckin vandal, and have one of your own turn on you in favour of a bunch of yanks whose only contributions have been to insult us, and cause trouble, and your man up there feels deeply saddened! What a feckin laugh! Take good care pal, Very best wishes, Tony


 * I knew those feckin words would come back to haunt me! OK Andrew, as far as you are concerned I'm treating this like A Shout. Alfa Four Two One Received, ON ROUTE


 * Of course you understand that, you've got the blood of Yorkshire Miners in your veins! Joe's got balls as well, and all my lot are from Scottie Road! Game set and match! Cheers La, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody responded?
How come I never saw this 'The/the talk' page, until I stumbled on it by accident? Are you telling me that I am either too stupid or too blind? These conversations are NEVER finished, as you well know, because they pop up again and again. A bunch of lay editors laying down their stylistic rules over the law is not my idea of being sensible. I will come back to this, but one has to work. andreasegde 06:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What law--and does it matter that, as I said in the earlier policy discussion, I'm not a "lay editor" but a professional one? --Lukobe 21:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I really would prefer to be doing this over a few pints in a dingy pub, but there it is.
 * The pages (with links) and the debate were placed at the top of the recent Newsletters under Issue of the Month and Issue of Last Month. I did not go canvassing for "support" since that is not allowed under WP:Meatpuppetry(I'll find the right link, later) rules (something Project members should be careful about when an article is going for review). Lastly, and very importantly, I did not call anyone a vandal - I said actions that might be considered such had happened.
 * Well, I'm going back to the Policy pages and try and get it changed to my preferred option. It is going to be difficult because it has to be shown that the current Policy is flawed, and it has to be done by the rules. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear LessHeard, the current policy is only what the current policy is. It will never be agreed upon wholeheartedly, ever, or ever. As you yourself said, dictionaries are 50/50 split (three against three) about it. Who are we to bicker about policy, when the professionals don't agree with each other? We should all get back to articles (meaning the GA type). Funnily enough, the FA crowd NEVER mentioned that 'The/the' problem when they failed Macca—not once. My best wishes. andreasegde 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't comment mainly because most of my Wikitime lately has been spent on other matters (namely, a couple of right-wing radio talk show hosts who are aggressively pushing their POV on global warming related articles). I don't mean to offend anyone who feels strongly about the matter, but if we prioritize the work that needs to be done on Beatles-related articles using a scale of 0 to 10, my rating on the issue of "The Beatles" versus "the Beatles" would be about 0.75. Raymond Arritt 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly seem to be getting some flak for something that is so minor. I don't even agree with this Policy, but I disagree more strongly with it being ignored. The point about FA/GAR is good, and could be mentioned. User:Steelbeard1 is over there trying his damnest, and he is going to need more than the help I can give him against the lowercase zealots (which doesn't include McTavidge or Lukobe, who are willing to discuss) over there.
 * I am staying in on this Project. I will nod politely when we meet, and I will comment on topics as I see fit; it is up to you how you react. LessHeard vanU 22:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a storm in a cracked teacup. We still love you, LessHeard. (Apolgies to the incredibly brave fireman for using his page to rant on a bit, BTW). Aye, it'll all come out in the wash, as Vera Duckworth once said... andreasegde 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A response from his lovely daughters' (and wife's) Dad
STICK IT RIGHT UP EM MR. MAINWARING!! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That comment has given me the first belly laugh since this bollocks began. I thank Vera very much. (I'm finding this hard to y<pr to because I'M wetting mayself-.-.) sorry i forgot sign in andreasegde 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ihavr read thisn three imes, and I am silee laughing. oh buger... andreasegde 00:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry
I found the link. It is a short section of the Sock puppetry policy article. Specifically it warns editors from soliciting editors with known viewpoints to join debates solely to increase the vote. You are probably safe regarding Project members, since most members are concerned contributors. If an editor hasn't contributed then it may be that their views are not suitable to be solicited. This is why I hadn't gone to any of the reviews for Mimi or Freddie, I have had no input. I have argued on the Trivia AfD's since I was already involved in previous AfD's (without being asked) - even though I have contributed little to the article. LessHeard vanU 00:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Peatmuppetry (it's not quite a mop, it's not quite puppet, but boy, oh boy ah ha ha ha... so in answer to your question I don't know)
I was reading over the whole "The" argument and Vera actually nearly left didn't he! Good lord, all over a case of sticky caps lock and misread vandal talk!--Crestville 16:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)