User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 7

Mal Evans
Mal is now a GA. I really don't like doing this, but sod it, I'm going to anyway:


 * Q:How do you feel?
 * A: Well, I thought the other team played better than us, even though they lost, but we played better in the long run, and err.. I'm over the moon, Brian.

ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 06:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Now on to Brian Epstein. "C'mon you Epsteins..." (Sorry - c'mon you reds...) andreasegde 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

School
Lol! This R.E. teacher says to Tommy, "what can you tell me about Damascus"? An Tommy says, "norra lot like, but they reckon it kills all known germs"! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't get that at first, but when I tried it with a proper scouse accent it worked! Dat was grrreat dat, brill - Dey do doh don't dey? :)) andreasegde 17:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Dey do dow don't dey dow! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought it was going to be the old joke of "Scouser, can you tell me who knocked down the walls of Jericho?" Scouser says, "It weren't me!". So the teacher goes to the headmaster and mentions what Scouser said. The Headmaster says, "Well, I know Scousers dad, and if Scouser says he didn't do it I guess we will just have to accept it!" LessHeard vanU 21:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This big Scouser falls into a vat of boiling chocolate, an all his pals start singin: Billy don't be an Aero! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 15:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am definitely NOT going to mention the one about "Batman can go out without..." andreasegde 16:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ar eh, dat ain't fur dat! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When you've finished with head the ball, watch this yer'll pee yer knickers! See yer La, I'm off to werk! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen that before, but it's definitely one of the most brilliant pieces of humour I have EVER watched. It's "awesome", as our American cousins are wont to say. andreasegde 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I used to love Chomnley Warner. Women know your limits? Women know your limits That fat kid joke - sad but probnably true. There are too many fat children. I find it hard not to kick them.--Crestville 13:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The video that Vera found is truly one of the funniest things I have ever seen in in my life. Please watch it. Arsenal against Liverpool andreasegde 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is one for Vera: Blind Date with Cilla - If others don't laugh at this, you must be six feet under. andreasegde 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And another one for Vera. He'll understand this one.... Liverpudlian in London andreasegde 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi ham afraid that hi do not hunderstand hay single word that these strange people har hon habout, hand hi ham hat hay complete loss has to why you have sent hit to me hin the first hinstance. Lord Snooty of Oxfordshire, in London


 * I wish to state that the ruffians who watch such highly offensive films are nothing more than gutter-snipes and should be strapped to a post and whipped soundly, but only if I can watch. I have known many highly respectable persons over the years that hail from the upstanding borough of the Pool, and they have never once tried to steal my Gucci handbag without telling me first that transvestites shouldn't wear moustaches.Miss Eric Broadbent 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am understanding zis one: Jürgen the German Hansi Knickerbockers 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomorrow Never Knows
I never really listened to this song before, but it is so [expletive elated] brilliant, that I urge you to listen the fantastic drum track and the pertinent lyrics. The video shows some early Fabs stuff that I have never seen before, BTW. Tomorrow Never Knows andreasegde 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a great video -- it's great the way they make the film bounce to the rhythm -- or maybe los Fabulosos actually did the song at the Cavern in 1962. Har! McTavidge 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration
There is a serious problem on the Brian Epstein page that needs to be looked at by other editors. I politely request other editors to take a look at the article and the talk page to decide whether the article is defamatory to Epstein, and whether there is too much in it about his sexuality. andreasegde 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article can only be defamatory if it isn't cited - if it's cited to reliable sources it's fine. The "Popular culture" section in the article will need a cleanup first before it can reach GA though. LuciferMorgan 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine as regards comments made about his business dealings, since most seem to be cited, and his percentages. As for some of his business dealings, perhaps he wasn't quite as smart as he could have been and trusted people too much but he was singularly devoted to the band, and again there are references (and qualifications about general practice at the time).
 * As for his sexuality, it seems that it did inform much of his life and as being queer was illegal and socially unacceptable in his formative years it must have played a significant part of his character development. Other than his sexuality and dealings with the Beatles, and other acts, is there any decent sources for the rest of his life outside of the Beatles and his orientation? I wouldn't be surprised if there was precious little outside of the Beatles and being gay. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles miscellanea
Exactly--it was your own compatriot who tried to stifle any responses to my comment. Lexicon (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a good long hot soak in a bath with the partner of your choice (preferably with someone whom you are in love with). It always helps me, and it could be good for you as well. I am here because I love improving the/The Beatles articles from Start/B-Class to GA. Why are you here, exactly? Please don't answer that, because it would be a waste time for us both. Have fun, and get on with the job... andreasegde 02:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to this, as well as the comment you made to someone else below it (both now in your archives), I apologize if my comments made you think I was "looking for an argument". I was not, unless you consider any discussion in which there may be opposing viewpoints an argument.  My comment reproduced above was simply a response to your comments (which you subsequently removed from the Wikiproject page), that accused me of trying to stifle any response to my own comment on that page, with you thinking that I had "closed" that discussion.  I noted that it was kingboyk who "closed" the discussion, an action which I felt the same about him doing as you felt about my supposed doing.  It's quite unfortunate that a completely innocent comment (which I admit came off somewhat acerbic, but which was not intended to do anything but state my view on the Beatles Miscellanea article) can result in two excellent editors (yourself and kingboyk) misunderstanding my intent completely.


 * While you told me not to answer your question about why I'm here, I will anyway. I'm here to improve Wikipedia just as you are.  I generally do simple edits, not having a whole lot of time to devote to the kind of in-depth work on articles that you're doing.  I've also created a view SVG flags for articles (mostly on commons, not en.wiki), started a few articles, and occasionally do an administrative task or two.


 * Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding my comments may have caused. Lexicon (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem at all Lexicon, and I really do appreciate your reply/comment above. I thank you, and you are a gentleman. Now... what about that bath? andreasegde 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll get right on it. ;) Lexicon (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Better than The Beatles? Maybe!
Just thought you might like a link to the last gig ever played by my band, The Troubadours (capital "T" please). We could only play that song and I never did learn the words. It's a bit long, but its worth it The Troubadours final gig featuring Filthy Luca Malone esq on Lead and Joey "The Mod" Fagin on Rythm] --Crestville 14:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you not in it? Or are you? C'mon Cresty baby, spill the beans... andreasegde 16:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be the one on the right, sat down. Shit, innit?--Crestville 12:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah - it doesn't look anything like you... (the nose is too straight, and the hair's the wrong colour) andreasegde 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * M...Maybe it i-isn't me....? I, erm, I'm pretty sure it is, but... well if you say so, mate. I know I can trust you. Yes. No, that can't be me in that video.--Crestville 12:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if it is you, then you've got a half-decent voice. Your guitar work is a bit shaky. (That's me talking like I know what I'm talking about - but I do.) How strange it is to see Crestville in the flesh, though. I'll have to watch it again. andreasegde 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I was drunk at the time. But how can it be shakey? It's three chords? Nice to see you in the flesh too (oo-er), but what's it all about? I didn't really have a chance to read it? As if you've actually made a record for EMI--Crestville 10:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhh-err missus, I did (but in sausage-land.) I played your video to me bird today, and she spotted you straight away. Why was it the last "gig" anyway? andreasegde 21:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How would your gf recognise me? I've never even met her..... honest. The "final gig" relates to a three-year long story of us being a band in name only. When I met John in the 1st year of Uni we both had that mentality of wanting to be in a band. At the time we lived with a lad who played bass and we'd always talk about forming a band, but it was really hard work. Then I pointed out that the best parts of being in a band - thinking up a name, jamming, telling people you're in a band, using it to impress girls - didn't actually involve much work at all. So we thought up a name - The Troubadours - and just played old Oasis tracks and "What's Gonig On" sometimes, but we really enjoyed it. Like "The Best There Isn't, The Best There Wasn't and The Best There Never Will Be". The bass player wasn't really involved because he has stage fright (we'd spend ages thinking up ideas to remedy this should we ever actually gig - for example having him inside a cupboard on stage). Anyway, Two years we lived together and it was a running joke. This year we don't live together, and though we see each other all the time we never jam. Went round his the other day for his Birthday and we just started, someone said we should record it, so we did and said it'd be our last gig coz we leave uni the end of this year. Turns out it was really good, I like it.


 * Camera was by my mate who is an aspiring director. Did it on a phone, with no zoom or owt, just jumping around the room.


 * So you're an austrian pop-star? I bet it's competetive with all the oohm-pah muzak! Also, how come I've been blagged into paying for someones trip to Austria?!--Crestville 14:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, the music was a longish time ago. I much prefer teaching 'em how to swear in English and say Eff the effin' effers, than hanging around with musicians who bleedin' complain all day. I'm potless as well, which is what happens to musicians at some time, although I do have a brother with a bleedin' yacht. Oh well... andreasegde 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yachts are so over-rated! They don't even sound like you spell them! I'd rather be a former pop-star like Simon le Bon out of Duran Duran than some dick who prats around on a yacht all day like Simon le Bon out of Duran Duran.--Crestville 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Eppy
Your'e willkommen like! Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * +%$&*@~%"**~*^^**!**(Red Baron!!) Gerrgh! Snoopy

On the Beatles
They sucked outloud, were poor musicians, and are living proof that people follow like sheep and will buy whatever they are told is "popular" or "modern". Wikipedia needs vandals to straighten out assholes like you. By the way, my cousin had a garage band back in the sixties that, like most bands, would have blown the beatles off of the stage. Im glad Lennon is dead, anyone can scream into a microphone...-Fat Tom, Cleveland Ohio 209.244.31.190 01:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you are fat, my dear Tom, and that you are so insecure about where you live that you have to type it into your user name. You should stop eating burgers and pizzas, and learn about how good it feels to be nice to people. I wish you the best. andreasegde 01:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shame eh our Kid? Still what else can yer do except say a little prayer for em. Night, early to werk termmora! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it just me, or does anyone else think that, on the balance of things, Fat Tom is over-estimating the potential of his Uncle's Garage Rock band? Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me.


 * He does have a point though, I didn't much care for The Beatles until someone came up to me and said "The Beatles are really popular". Since then, I've been their #1 fan. I don't understand what any of the words mean, but I don't think that matters because they're very popular. I also feel a band some 50 years old could, quite accurately, be described as "modern"


 * I do also find that vandals had "straightened" me "out" by doing such wildly intelligent, anarchic and insighful things as changing "John Lennon" to either "Gay Lennon" or "John Gay" and "The Beatles" to "The Gay Boys". Very funny stuff. Boy is my face red.


 * In conclusion, you are a sad, bitter fool Tommo. If you don't like The Beatles, fine. Your loss, fuck off. Don't go vandalising pages becasue it will have as much effect as me writing "The Beatles are great" would have on you. Don't come bitching people about them because - get this - no one gives a shiny shite what you think. Maybe it's because you're not popular so I don't have any sheep-like desire to follow you. Or maybe it's because if I want to listen to an arsehole, I'll fart.


 * Point made, I think.


 * Watch me get blocked for this now.--Crestville 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, my esteemed colleague has just had a rant, which is totally allowed on this page (which is mine but not mine, as the powers that be know all too well). The honourable Crestville is a fine, upstanding young man (when he's not falling into walls whilst under the influence) and I am quite possibly related to him in a northern, alcoholic way (the DNA pints have yet to be pulled). If anyone disagrees with his personal thoughts and complains about them, I will politely rip off your ears and speak with your testicles (in a very moderated, and calm way, you undrerstand) about sharpened scissors and the use thereof. Scissors are also very pointy, which makes any member of the male species grimace when thinking about them. Now block us both, or give us a Barnstar for licking the road clean with our lacerated tongues every morning. There you go - I think that will do... andreasegde 18:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, you have your own troll! Congratulations! Remember the simple rules of caring for your own personal troll; don't feed it and watch it turn to ash. LessHeard vanU 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor Fat Tom - he's been blocked... andreasegde 02:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That he tried to insult us by insulting the Queen and Prince Charles sort of shows how out of touch he is with British culture. If you want to fuck the Queen, be my guest. What I did find annoying was the accusation that English people don't use the English language correctly. Well, aside from the argument that there is no single defining "English Language" due to regional variencies, I would add that since the language is English, however the English choose to speak it is right beause it's our language. By the same token, if nyone ever beats us at rugby, football etc. it's not because they're better than us, it's because they're not playing it properly. It's a strange logic, but I think it works. By the way, vandalise my page as much as you like. I'll just revert it, no worries.--Crestville 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Brian
Right - that's it. I'm off to have a jar, and to sink me nuts in something called a friend, who is (in reality) called a girl. Do you what you will, as I have no interest in anything that is not feline-shaped... andreasegde 21:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Report....dit....dit..dot..dot.. The nuts were not sunken. Bugger... andreasegde 18:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm are you getting annoyed with waiting for GAC to review articles also? I feel like I've been waiting forever. LuciferMorgan 02:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My talk page
If someone wanted to be really, really nice to me (and I mean nice, and not anything sexually disgusting) they would not give me a Barnstar for my, frankly, bleedin' amazing efforts on raising articles from B to GA (sound of own trumpet blowing) but would clean up my talk page Barnstar section, which I have no idea how to do, and believe me, I've tried. There you go - that's a bleedin' challenge... bleedin' andreas bleedin' egde 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Save the Beatles Quiz!
It turns out your predictions are correct, and the Beatles quiz is going to be deleted. Help me, the creator, save this. 01kkk 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The the - yes folks, it's here again
This was copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy


 * Brian Epstein signed a contract with the Beatles. He signed it with their individual consent, and they signed it as individual members of The Beatles. Point? Plural, and not collective.
 * Paul and John went to Paris, meaning that the Beatles who went to Paris were only two, and not the whole group.
 * The Beatles, meaning the Beatles that toured America (not 1, 2, 3, of them, but 4 of them) were The Beatles, because it was singular, meaning a whole entity.
 * This is a way of raising the debate to a new level, which includes both sides of the argument. andreasegde 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you couch your arguments in grammatical terms? --Lukobe 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Because, as has been stated by Vera, Chuck and Dave, the The is part of a title/name, but not applicable when writing about a number of the people involved. andreasegde 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As a smaller number of people who believe this to be the case, myself, Vera Chuck and Dave, Crestville, and one or two others (who have been around Wikpedia long enough to know what we are talking about) have decided that the policy will be changed. We have not voted on this, and realise that many editors will disagree, but we have come to a consensus that we believe is best for Wikipedia and articles that feature The Beatles (as a group, and not as individual members in groups of two or three) and agree that when editors write about 1/2/ or 3 of The Beatles, they should called the Beatles, but collectively, The Beatles, as that was the band's name. This clears the air, and will be noted in the next Beatles' Newsletter. andreasegde 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will give examples as to the use of:


 * I saw the Beatles (or a Beatle) at various times in London. Singular, plural, but not collective, because I saw them individually, and sometimes two, or three, but not the whole band.
 * I saw The Beatles [group] on TV. Collective, because it was the whole entity.
 * After The Beatles [collective] became successful, Alistair Taylor asked Evans why the Beatles [individually] had chosen... andreasegde 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you talk about the income of The Beatles, you mean the collective income, but the Beatles who earned the most were Lennon-McCartney.
 * "Lennon was considered the leader of the Beatles" is wrong, because he was the leader of The Beatles (collectively) and not individual members.

Someone get me a drink - I actually followed that. And I think you're right. Tvoz | talk 04:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Large Scotch O Scary One? Also, A Hard Day's Night is the third album by The Beatles, NOT the Beatles Bongo O'Starkers


 * I concur, my dear Vera, because the Beatles that worked on the album were John, Paul, George and Ringo, who released the album as a record by The Beatles. andreasegde 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When The Beatles watched what was supposedly three of the Beatles singing on TV, they were suspicious as to the validity of the recording of the Beatles because the Beatles on TV didn't dress like The Beatles or sound like The Beatles and didn't really look like the Beatles that they were meant to. Mind you, The Beatles were very impressed with the Beatles lookalikes, as to someone who was not a member of The Beatles, you would be unable to tell that the Beatles on the show were not actually members of The Beatles either, and so could not really be classified as the Beatles.


 * (I hope that's right!) Shrub of power 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's not. Here we go...


 * When the Beatles [individuals who may have watched it at different times] watched what was supposedly three Beatles [only three, not four] singing on TV, they were suspicious as to the validity of the recording of The Beatles [collective name] because the Beatles on TV didn't dress like The Beatles [collective name] or sound like The Beatles [collective name] and didn't really look like The Beatles [collective name]. Mind you, the Beatles [individually] were very impressed with The Beatles' [collective name] lookalikes, as to someone who was not a member of The Beatles [collective name], you would be unable to tell that the Beatles [looking at each of them individually] on the show were not actually members of The Beatles [collective name] either, and so could not really be classified as The Beatles [collective name].

There you go... andreasegde 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember The Banana Bunch? The title song is applicable:

One Beatle, two Beatles, three Beatles, four - who were the Beatles that played in a band called The Beatles. andreasegde 17:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now we know what to do should that contrived situation ever arrive. Alternatively, use the great decider 'eeny-meeny-miny-mo' (just kidding). *sigh* - we should probably all get out more. Shrub of power 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * i really dont understand why certain people consider this a trivial matter do we really want wikipedia articles ending up being written like this like that horrible little book that comes with the cd soundtrack from that film about zimbo i suppose that was written in a style as well was it vera chuck and dave ps and speaking of getting out more im off to the savoy grill with my lovely wife now because today is our fifteenth wedding anniversary

Uhh-err Missus
Well, that set the cat amongst the pigeons, didn't it? andreasegde 12:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that I put a spanner in the works, a ghost in the machine, disturbed the hornet's nest, went out on a limb, spoke before I was spoken to, was a child that should be seen and not heard, put my oar in, jabbed my elbow in some ribs, said my piece, stood up for what a lot of us believe, threw my cap in the ring, got up people's noses, did as others do unto me, stuck by my beliefs, and gave it some 'welly' (Wellington Boot).


 * I stand by the fact that the Beatles (individually, and sometimes in groups of two, three or four at times) recorded "The White Album", but it was released under the collective name of The Beatles. Lennon and McCartney were the Beatles who recorded the Ballad of John and Yoko, but they were not The Beatles, as a complete unit/entity, even though it was released as such... andreasegde 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh God, never get drunk on Champagne! I've stuck my two coppers worth on the page. Cheers Our Kid, 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the cliff job but they'd stand beside us as too! Oh God speakin of which... hello Andrea I hope you are well. night night god bless PoppyXXXXXX. Drink of Orange! At this time of the morning! I've stuck her back in bed! Cheers La, Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 01:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've got a username now...
thought I'd let you know that I've got a username now... and may join the project. I would however love to hear more about the sources for the "The/the" debate from your side. Seems like there are some pretty serious ideas on both sides of this great one...

Bone in thigh 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My last comment (I think) on this
I've left the Beatles project. I can't understand half of your talk page posts so I don't know if any of the comments about cliffs and cats and pigeons and other ... stuff ... should mean something to me, but it doesn't. It could be about me for all I know (or care). I'll WP:AGF. I do sincerely hope that you will reconsider your approach to this. Your confusing talk page posts aside, I think before you went all psycho on the/The, you were trying to move articles up the assessment scale and that was good. This bizarre "I am in charge now" thing is so opposite of that that I can't comprehend it. And somehow, you were adding reasonable citations to article pages, but doing OR for the/The. StopAndThinkAboutIt. The issue now is not the/The. The issue is process. I will let you have the last words. And, by the way, I can use confusing in-jokes and self-referential confusing claptrap as much as the next guy; I just don't choose to do it here. &mdash; John Cardinal 04:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a good long soak in a hot bath. andreasegde 12:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is...
If anybody actually read through the numerous examples of the difference I have given between the and The, they might get the point, instead of running around like chickens with their heads cut off. andreasegde 12:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, we get your point, we just fail to see the sense in it. --Lukobe 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We Lukobe? Speak for yourself, as the rest of us have our own tongue to speak with. LuciferMorgan 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "We" meaning "we to whom that comment was addressed"--not you, LuciferMorgan. --Lukobe 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Others to whom that comment was addressed can speak for themselves. You represent your own opinion, and not everyone elses. You should use the word "I", not "we". LuciferMorgan 00:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Get over it. You know what I meant. --Lukobe 06:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it -- why are you so sarcastic and in-your-face? ("If anybody actually read through ... they might get the point..." blah, blah.) I suspect everybody who's commented actually did read through it all, even those of us who are headless poultry now, and even got the point, such as it is. I just don't see any support for it outside of your own musings on it. As someone pointed out earlier, you're basically just repeating your opinions over and over -- and getting pissed off (I know, stupid American, I've stumbled here and accused you of getting drunk when what I meant to say was that you got angry) at the drop of a hat, shouting at innocent bystanders with all caps (recall "AND WHO ARE YOU"), and dismissing legitimate (or at least heart-felt) observations/criticisms with throw-aways like "I suggest a warm bath." It's a pretty caustic environment and it's turning people off to an otherwise cool project. McTavidge 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that Andreasegde has got a few GAs for the Beatles Project, and to be honest, I see little other activity outside of his GA contributions. In other words, I don't see anyone else in the Project actually getting off their ass to improve articles which is the whole point of this Project. What's most stupid is people are more concerned about arguing over whether the Beatles should be capped or not, yet when discussions about improving articles come about nobody batters an eyelid - the priorities of this Project seem all wrong.


 * Also, the "throwaway" "I suggest a warm bath" comment you're criticising McTavidge was a lot more temperamental than what I would've said to that user. Whether that user's comments were correct I'm unsure, but what I'm saying is his "throwaway" comment was an attempt to defuse the situation. LuciferMorgan 11:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more! The Paul McCartney article which Andrea brought up to GA only just failed FA, and that wasn't because "The Beatles" at that time were capitalised in the article, in fact, no one even passed comment. And leaving Andrea out of the equation for a momment, there are only about 5 or 6 people (project members) that make any constructive contributions to The Beatles articles, and now this obsession with the Beatles which in my opinon, for certain people, is just about winning an argument, which has cost the project one very valuable member, and we all know who that is don't we?


 * And as for myself and andrea "speaking in code" about other editors, don't flatter yourselves! If we had anything to say to you, the message bar would go up, and you would read it put on your page Vera, Chuck &amp; Dave 12:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

out-denting.

First, my comment acknowledged the work andreasegde did on trying to get articles moved up the assessment scale.

Second, getting GAs or better on high-profile articles is only one thing that needs to be done. While he has been doing that, I've made 1000+ edits in the last 30 to 45 days, including completely rewriting many song articles. A quick look at my last 500 adits shows the majority on Beatle-related articles (including a bunch on my talk page which were experiments on the Beatle templates, since removed). My project editing includes some anti-vandalism activity and 45 (or so) places where I have added citations--which iis extremely important in my opinion. That's the work of just one other editor, and there are other people out there. This not the Personal Wikiproject of your-name-here, and no single editor is more important than anyone or everyone else.

Third, I agree with McTavidge that comments like "If anybody actually read through ..." are part of the problem. I did read the dictated policy, and I didn't agree with it or with the process by which it was put in place. Does andreasegde think that the argument is so persuasive that anyone who doesn't agree must not have read it? Why not WP:AGF?

Fourth, I regret my comment above about claptrap, etc., although the part about not understanding cats and pigeons and cliffs stands. I don't know what any of that means. More importantly, I stand behind all my in-public, un-coded criticism of how the andreasegde-led policy change was decided and implemented.

John Cardinal 13:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vera, Chuck and Dave: I don't know whom you're referring to as being obsessed (although, as usual, I have to assume that you mean to include me without actually saying so directly), but in any case your opinion that it's just about winning an argument is odd because, as you may have noticed, there's an argument/discussion afoot, and of course that means there are (at least) two opposing views, with adherents to each view, and each side's adherents are actively arguing, back and forth, to and fro (you get the picture), and if that's what you mean by obsession and a desire to win an argument merely for the sake of winning and alienating (or boring) people along the way, etc., then I don't see how it is that only Little T people can be guilty. If you believe that time spent on this is not constructive (and apparently you do), then why go on displaying signs that in others you identify as "obsession"? McTavidge 01:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Paul McCartney, Mimi Smith, Julia Lennon, Freddie Lennon, Neil Aspinall, Mal Evans, and almost Brian Epstein.


 * In your face and sarcastic, huh? When you slack-arsed moaning fishwives have brought any article at all from Start/B-class to GA, then you can comment. I didn't "try" to move articles up the scale, I bleeding well did it. Until then you can take your "small t" and shove it as far up your rectum as is humanely possible. If you did as much writing in articles as you do on talk pages, every article about The Beatles would be at least a GA, but they're not, are they? You're just a bunch of [expletive deleted], and you can all [expletive deleted] off. That good enough for you?


 * P.S. Any comment below this will be subject to sarcasm and verbal insults, so I suggest you sod off and complain somewhere else.. andreasegde 08:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo
Hope I wasn't imposing, but you seemed to have fluffed the archiving so I thought I'd help out. How is everything anyway, you old git?--Crestville 21:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at Brian Epstein and get it to GA. andreasegde 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, whoa, why are you blanking everything? Don't you be leaving without saying taraa. Come to think of it, don't you be leaving at all, clown. Did you have trouble on the Eppy page or something?--Crestville 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)