User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 3

The Beatles and forking articles

I have a problem that I would like to impart to all you good 'Beatles project' editors, and it is this:

Should anything directly Beatles-related be in the main Beatles' article, and only 'personal' stuff put into the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr articles? I have the disturbing feeling that I'm repeating stuff in both Lennon and McCartney articles that should only be in the main article.
But... if only personal stuff is included in the individual Beatles' articles, would it make them too confusing/random, to read?

Please answer (on a stamped and self-addressed postcard please) on our talk page. (This might be more interesting than talking about MBEs... :) andreasegde, Mr Hornby, and Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh those forkin' articles (that may only work with a NY accent).... well, I think we have to have a not-huge Beatles section on each individual page - more than just "see the main article" - because of the flow and it would seem weird to cut it out of there. The stuff that is specific to an individual belongs in the individual pieces - like, say, details of John meeting Yoko - but we'd cetrtainly have to talk about Yoko in the Beatles article in terms of her impact on the group. In the Beatles article, obviously, we focus on the group while they were together, emphasizing the things that are group-ish like appearing before the Queen, or on Ed Sullivan, say (the only thing those two have in common, I might add) - and of course all of the record-related stuff, the breakup, the aftermath: meaning the way that the album "1" became a mega-hit, and the Anthologies, and "Love", etc. Sort of how I think the Lennon/McCartney article focuses on their writing partnershp but of course we have to talk a bit on Macca and Lennon about it. Does that make any sense or just further confuse? If it added confusion, it's me, not you. Tvoz | talk 18:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC) To clarify - by "not huge" I mean small-ish. I'm sure that helps. Tvoz | talk 20:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be difficult to completely seperate the individual from the group with regard to the band years. Another instance might be George Harrisons spiritual development, the entire band went on the pilgramage but only George continued the studies throughout the rest of his life. As da Noo Yawker says, where an individuals actions affected the band then that needs to be commented upon in both articles.LessHeard vanU 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a really strong opinion about this but I think you guys are on a reasonable track. Conventionally, rollup articles tend to have summaries of detail items, and the summaries are often repeated as, or near, the leads of the detail articles. So repeating some part of the Beatles stuff, is not bad. If the main beatles article has a capsule bio of each of the Fab 4, that can be the lead for their article. Or something. I trust you lot to do the right thing so this is mostly a "carry on" message, you're doing good work. ++Lar: t/c 16:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knackered

I have to admit that I have run out of energy on this gargantuan task. (I may be experiencing my first bout of 'Wiki-stress', and I don't like it very much). I will now concentrate on Mimi and George Smith, Julia and Freddie Lennon, and Jim and Mary McCartney for a while (if only to dispel some Urban Legends). If anyone wants a citation for something specific, please leave a message on my talk page. andreasegde, Mr Hornby, Sir Sean de Garde, John Bender and Raoul McKnickers 02:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Smith

I find that I am really enjoying working on Mimi Smith (if that were possible, Vicar) and I am free of interference from vandals (she's not that interesting to them..) It also means that a lot of interesting stuff gets put in about The Beatles (that I never knew before). I'm having fun, and I hope you are too. andreasegde 19:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you've done some amazing re-search there, from my little stub. I'm gonna read it RIGHT NOW! BTW, I quite like her. She's just from a differant era. Do you know, till he died, John rang her ever night. She can't have been that bad.--Crestville 12:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon

It's really late, but I just finally read through the new Lennon and have some comments that I don't want to forget, so forgive my incoherence. Wow - you did an amazing job!

OK:

"Aunt Mater" - this is not a term I've heard in the US. Is it the same as "godmother"? If so, maybe we should put that, or whatever it means, in parens for those of us who NEVER would say "The Beatles was a band". (If you're not reading Talk:The Beatles, you will now assume I'm daft. I probably am, but not as much as some people... Read that talk page if you need a laugh.)
"The band switched to playing rock 'n' roll, using the name 'Johnny and The Moondogs', but Lennon found it too musically associated to skiffle." - not clear to me - if you mean the name J&the M was too close to skiffle, then why say "musically"? I don't actually know what exactly skiffle is, so maybe this is clear to others.
I think we need to explain what happened (in Yoko section) between 1969 and the lost weekend - 1969 all seems fine, and the very next thing we hear is a few yrs later Yoko's getting him a girlfriend (kind of selfless of her, isn't it? I wouldn't have done that!) and throwing him out. Too abrupt - maybe a sentence or so about what happened there.I'm not sure what the story is, so I didn't add anything, but it needs something. (I did add a sentence at end of solo career to explain that he retired because we start the next section saying that he came out of retirement.) --Tvoz | talk continued below

Here is the real story. May Pang was hired as an assistant and then ordered by Yoko to become a geisha for John. Basically this amounts to sexual harrassment but little slut May went along with it, and is now trying to convince the whole wide world that John loved her more then Yoko, that they were in love and other such drivel. Anyone can see that John pined for Yoko the whole time and was ecstatic to return to Yoko. Whether Yoko loved John as much as John loved Yoko is another issue to debate, but hard evidence and history shows without a doubt that John loved Yoko more then May. May would like you to forget that fact though. this comment unsigned was from the creatively named 69.38.133.62 who is jonesing on may pang, but use of the word "geisha" was pretty funny, or racist. Not sure which.

Back to Tvoz | talk: A few continuity problems:

Not crazy about the intro family life graf - I know we need one, but this wording seems to put the cart before the horse, talking about Julian and Sean before we have him meeting Cynthia.
"Following the Christmas holidays, he returned to live with Yoko Ono." - this is now out of context because that happened after May Pang and the lost weekend, but we haven't been told about May Pang yet.
SImilarly - we talk about his immigration situation being resolved before we hear that he had an immigration problem.

Before, the piece was too rambling and all over the place - your chronological organization definitely makes more sense - but in these few places (possibly in another one or two, but these were the ones that bothered me) there is a continuity problem - any thoughts about how to handle it? Too late at night for me to think - I'll look at it again when both eyes are open.

Great job though - I'm not happy that so much had to be cut, because I think it tends to get a little choppy as a result, and I miss some of the language, but I do understand why you've done that. Thanks for all that work. And now, for real, good night. Tvoz | talk 09:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks (as always) for your comments, dearest Tvoz. I started work on it, and threw a load of stuff in, but I didn't really go through everything. I had an overload of pages (I was working on The Beatles, Macca and Lennon at the same time) and my brain crashed, so I went to the stubs to rebuild my original enthusiasm. (I'm really enjoying it, BTW.) Anyway, if there's anything you want to change, then you are the person to do it. Go for it... andreasegde 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Aunt Mater" is confusing, because 'Mater' means mother. She was Lennon's Aunt Elizabeth, but (like Mimi and Julia) she was known by another name - from Elizabeth to Betty, and then to Mater. Funnily enough, this never occured to me before, but your eagle-eyes spotted it (again) :) andreasegde 20:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Smith

I reviewed it as a B article, then I thought I'd 'jump in the deep end'. (I have nominated it for GA). To Hell with the doubters - let rip, unfurl the pennants, and 'strike while the iron's hot', as the boys and girls from the 'East Leeds Labour Club Pensioners International Line-dancing Formation Team' say (when they put their dentures in). Sir Sean de Garde and the other mob 02:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split infinitives

Not sure what you're saying when you quote Star Trek ("to boldly go"); I assume you mean that if they do it, it must be OK. That's certainly one view of it, although the way people talk on television is actually pretty atrocious and not generally a good model.McTavidge 15:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying that it is an old rule that one shouldn't break. Poor old Captain Kirk is ridiculed because of it. It should be, "To go boldly..." and not, "To happily work", but, "To work happily on Wiki," which is right, if you get their drift. Thanks for the clean-up on Mimi, BTW. :) andreasegde 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashed clever what?

I say M'lud, dashed cunning little devices these eh? One of one's suborbdanants has informed me of the the procedure that you employed to achive such a wonderous feat, and one thanks your good self for engaging in the afore mententioned on one's behalf, you are indeed sir, an officer and a gentleman, you shall be mentioned in dispatches. Lt. Gonville (volley fire at 100 yards) Bromhead VC

Could'nt agree with you more Sir Sean. nice to see the lower ranks keeping themselves busy and out of trouble. Want to thank you for helping the big useles lump, as he's being put through his paces by the physical training johnnies to get him fighting fit again, and is finding it all a bit hard (knocking on a bit don'tcha know) and finding it very wearing an all that rot! Once again many thanks old chap. Chin, chin. Lt. John Rouse Merriott (Spit boy, SPIT!) Chard. VC

Mimi

Alright Mimi (if that is your real name. Which it isn't. Though it is a girls name.) The book I need is back in Bradford so I won't be able to get my hand on it until at least February. It's a good read though, you should get a copy.--Crestville 17:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple personalities

It said, in the last Beatles' newsletter, that "Sir Sean de Garde appears to have developed multiple personalities." This is very true (and made one laugh an awful lot) but it is necessary when one is faced with talking to one on one's pages that one has contributed to. (Work that one out... :) The changing of one's name brings tremendous amusement to one - as other editors are wont to do the same. I refer you to members, Vera, Chuck, and Dave, LessHeard vanU, and Crestville, who have given one a terrific amount of pleasure in the general 'laughing gear' area, because of their inovative choices of Nom de plumes. One can only hope that this practice does not offend one's own sense of normality. One can only live in hope. :)) Who am I? 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have mentioned it had I not thought that it would have amused those in the know, and writing Newsletters is as much a chore as writing on empty to a talkpage... MisTER e

Multiple personalities? I'm afraid I haven't got a clue what your'e all on about. Tony E. (wot me worry) Blairman

I have been laughing so much that I have had to hold my stomach in. I love you guys (but not in any physical sense, you understand...) No, I am really hetrosexual 01:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh what a shame - It ain't half hot Cliff! Bombardier Beaumont.

Don't encourage the useless great lump! You want to have it's Scouse gob in your ear 'ole over the RT for eight bleedin' hours mate! Cockney Dave, Blue Watch

I think pseudonyms are great fun. The Beatles used them all the time, and they can be silly (Dr Winston O'Boogie anyone?), witty (Who Am I?) or just plain weird (George Harrsion's, which I have forgotten, thus rendering my point somewhat impotent). Anyway, in light of your recent post, I resolve to only use pseudonyms forthwith and never again shall I refer to myself as "Crestville". Crestville is dead, and I hereby reign in a new era. I shall be a mecurial being, lacking in shape, only substance, with no fixed title. May the Lord strike me down if I am anything but true to my word.--Crestville (oh shit) 14:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will strike you down, you miserable descendant of the unworthy Adam and Eve duo - I gave them fair warning, didn't I, but did they listen? (Did they bollox...) "Oh yea, though I edit in the valley of Admins, I shall fear no vandals", shall be your new truism. Now stop playing pocket billiards and remember to sleep with boxing gloves on. Oh; get a relative to read the Ray Coleman book and tell you the page numbers over the phone :) I bless you all.... The Lord Good Almighty 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May

Sorry, didn't see your question about this until now -if you want a page protected (actually semi-protected - blocking IP addresses and newly created accounts), you have to make a formal request on the administrators' protection request page. I can tell you how to make the request, but you'll need more than you have, I think, to get any love. Blocking an individual, however, is a matter of his or her breaking rules like violating WP:3RR, or having been warned about vandalism several times, etc. and then someone requesting a user block which I've done numerous times after warnings. I put a first warning note on the user talk page of the IP address who posted that crap inside of my comment above, and if it continues, there may be a case for blocking the address from editing. This is kind of interesting - rather a one-note dude or dudette, I'd say. About the article itself - personally I'm not thrilled - she makes all kinds of claims, perhaps to sell books, and nothing seems corroborated. (Heavily relying on Cynthia's book when writing about John makes me a little uncomfortable too, for similar reasons, but at least a lot else has been written about him for counter-balance, plus intereviews with him. May seems kind of out there on her own, and neither Goldman on the one hand nor Mintz on the other exactly inspire confidence in their independent thinking abilities.) I re-phrased May in a few places to say that these things are what she claims, but all in all, for what it's worth, it's not my favorite Beatles article. Let me know if you want to pursue sprot and I'll tell you how to do it. Meanwhile, it is totally freezing in NY tonight, which is a rather random comment brought on by my putting on yet another sweater (jumper?) to be able to sit here, inside! I think I'll have another cup of tea. No, make that a beer.Tvoz | talk 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - I think I'll have a beer as well. (Sound of can being opened...) I'm working on Julia at the moment, and am using Spitz, but will use Miles and 'Cyn' later. You are right about Cyn's memory - she confused the leather coat (book) Lennon bought her with a suede coat (radio) and made some other glaring mistakes, which I didn't use. Not that bothered about Pang at the moment - was just irritated at vandal. Ho-hum... andreasegde 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my problem is that neither May Pang nor Cynthia Lennon are objective, so I am skeptical about some of the "facts". But more is more, as they say. Cheers Tvoz | talk 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tank

Oh, that made me laugh me socks off.... (I'm still laughing, and finding it hard to type... I should have seen that one coming, lol... :)) The Laughing Cavalier 03:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny --Crestville 17:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good!

LOL! Cheers pal chin up, night, see yer termorra la, Vera, Chuck & Dave 02:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpet Solo (Voluntary)

Whilst self praise is no praise I suggest you take a look at Talk:The Beatles and the (last) subject entitled 'The Most Successful and Critically... etc.'. I laughed out loud when I read the Croydon Tea Rooms joke, and I was the sodding writer! (I Wanna Be) Cathy McGowans Clown (Ready Steady Go) 17:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling Bewitched?

I, Sir, am a woman of Mister E. TvoZ 21:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, Sir, are a cad, and ought to be whipped with a pillow stuffed with large feathers until you submit. Crossed-vile 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's this Vera Dave & Chuck? Less TvoZ Van Rental

Paul McCartney

So when will you nominate the article for FA? I've been waiting ages to lend my vote of support! Hope you're well by the way. LuciferMorgan 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it. I haven't been ill, though - I've been having a great time on the Mimi Smith and Julia Lennon pages. andreasegde 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You, my friend, are a glutton for punishment. But good luck with the FA! Let me know if I can help Tvoz | talk 22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, my dear, and true, friends. Now click on the FA page and leave a nice comment... :) andreasegde 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not supposed to if we've edited there a lot, I think (does anyone know?) - I accommodated one comment that made sense in first graf Tvoz | talk 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is called "bad form" by one seriously English editor, but I have never seen a rule about it. I believe the 'unwritten rule' is to stop overly-interested editors from "stuffing ballot boxes" by making comments like, "I think it's Fab, 'cos my dad said so." The editor/editors of an article are asked to leave their own opinions on the FA Nom pages, BTW.

As we are all reasonably adult (apart from the insane humour, of which I approve) I see no reason why we can not be level-headed decent human beings, and allowed to leave our well-considered comments on the FA page. andreasegde 08:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humour Warning!

Thank you for your humourous contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a look at the welcome page and note that this sort of nonsense will not be tolerated. From now on, you must engage in edit warring, personal attacks, and general nastiness like everyone else. Do I make myself clear? Thanks, 'Ed Admin.

I agree with 'Ed Admin, and think that said editor (andreasegde) should have his colon removed with a pair of rusty scissors. That would shut him up. (Well, not really, because he would be screaming the house down, but I think you get my drift...) Doctor Ratface, OBE 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do to deserve a humour warning? I personally have never had a problem with humour as I don't know what it is. Do I win £5? Bobby "I'd like to tell you about a man called Jesus" Ball. Or Tommy Cannon, whichever. Actually, Little and Large too, for that matter

Stop it! Me face hurts! Now they are both Ace! You guys crack me up! Agatha Crispie's Handbag

No, Crestville, you do not win £5 until you answer the Daz question: How painful is it (on a scale from one to ten) to have one's testicles roasted for 15 minutes at Gas Mark 5? Daz doorstep question 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking painful, though genuinely arousing. Apparently we crack the Scouser up. If we really, really tried to be funny, I think we could kill him. Let's finish the job. Danny Baker or Paul Ross, but not that other one. He was shit.

'Death by premediatated laughter' on the coroner's report? WMD: Weapons of mass Dumb-jokes ? GBH: Grievious bodily howling? First Degree Humour? Right, Sonny Jim, I em arresting yew for the murder of an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman. Dixon of yer Cock is Green 16:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aye? Yews friggin' try it - like! You'll Never Walk Again

Paul McCartney

I have nominated it for FA. Here we go on the critique merry-go-round. andreasegde 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't the foggiest regarding FA noms (as I believe they are abbreviated). No doubt there will be a helpful editor should you not have crossed the i's and dotted the t's... LessHeard vanU 22:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did it OK, Boss. Shitting me Panties 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got it mostly right, but your big mistake was that you submitted it on the featured lists candidates page. There are a few different types of featured status, and I'm pretty sure you meant to submit Paul McCartney as a featured article candidate. Also, new nominees go at the top of the list, not the bottom. Other than than you got it right, but it will require some page moves to put the nomination in the right place. --Arctic Gnome 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very kindly, Sir. May the warmth of the sun's arctic rays increase your height. andreasegde 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting to pounce on that vote for several months. Keep a clear head and don't let the detail critics get to you...it's a great article and your contributions to it have been above and beyond! Good luck! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck our kid. Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice;DUCK! LessHeard vanU 13:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put it in the featured lists section? ha ha ha! You silly sod! That's off to a bad start then. Nah, good luck with it Andy (rea). You have worked so hard on that page it deserved FA - although it is now more citation that actual text! How can they resist? If you need someone to bilndly and agressively fight your corner, without any real in depth knowlege of the argument, you know where to find me. (it's User:Crestville)--Crestville 14:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vultures are circling overhead. One has actually complained that, "Footnotes do not have a preceding space either", which is the epitomy of being pedantic. Oh, well. andreasegde 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And quite apart from anything else, they're not ment to.--Crestville 14:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look - this is an excellent article, despite its appalling orthography and lacunae (give some people power and that's what you get - "punctuation" and "gaps" would have worked nicely). We'll correct comma errors, although I thought I had caught them - and we can reduce the numbers of repeat references within a sentence - but predicatbly a lot of the comments are classically ignoring the text to obsess on the length of the dashes. This is a chronic problem in FA/GA requests. The good point coming out of this is that suddenly 10,000 words is only a guideline - we weren't cutting because we thought the article needed cutting, we were cutting because of the arbitrary word limit. So if that word limit is fluid, there's more that can be done with the article if anyone is up to it. There's ~~almost~~ no point in arguing there. Sir Sean, you did a fabulous job. Tvoz | talk 18:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I should have taken my own advice. Tvoz | talk 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the reception that this nom received, and that The Beatles are at WP:GAR

== Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) ==

I have made a few comments at the above place, mostly directly relating to frustrations I have encountered while contributing to this Project and the articles The Beatles and Paul McCartney. My festering resentment has leaked out in the form of WP:FAR and WP:GAR are the enemies of WP:The Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit. Please feel free to disassociate yourselves from me... ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the fools need to get over themselves! LessHeard vanU 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football

In the vain hope that it may cheer you up, I hereby award you a fish! Walk on, Walk on with a fish in your Heart

I like fish. Got a tank to go with it? andreasegde 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something a little different....

Hate to distract you from distinguishing btwn your hyphens and em-dashes, but I actually have a content question: the Macca article says Northern Songs was formed by someone, Brian Epstein and The Beatles - is that right or is it really someone, Epstein and John & Paul? Tvoz | talk 18:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [please note - my American instinct was to write "Northern Songs WAS formed." Even though I wouldn't say The Beatles was", ever. What can I tell you.)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, yeah - but Northern Songs makes it worse. Northern Songs intro says that the company was formed by Dick James and Lennon and McCartney, nothing about Brian Epstein. Beatles says the company was formed by Dick James and Brian Epstein, and that Lennon and McC assigned rights to their songs to it. Paul McCartney says Northern Songs was formed by Dick James, Brian Epstein and the Beatles, to mainly publish Lennon & McC's songs. John Lennon, mercifully, is silent on the subject but come to think of it (don't scream) shouldn't we have something in there about Northern Songs? Dick James (and I am still laughing that his name was really Reginald Leon Vapnick which sounds like an old vaudeville joke) says nary a word about Brian, but has him (James) forming Northern with John and Paul. But that's ok because Brian Epstein says nothing about Dick James or Northern. So.....my guess is that "The Beatles" didn't form Northern with Dick James, it was John and Paul - and I don't know about Brian, but one way or the other we ought to try to make them all consistent. I'll be glad to do it - just tell me what is correct. Tvoz | talk 23:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main article comments that Harrison and Starr formed their own publishing companies when the Northern Songs contract expired, so that would point to The Beatles assigning (at least) their publishing rights (and Harrison wrote the fairly pithy Only A Northern Song, which could be considered emperical evidence). I would not think that Harrison, a smart lad, would assign his few songs to a company he had no share in. Also, the early Beatles musketeer ethos would dictate that every band member had a piece. LessHeard vanU 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True - I'll have to ask my husband who was a songwriter back in the day - I don't remember now what standard publishing contracts said. Of course the writers would have had to get writing royalties, but it's the publisher's share that they likely would all have wanted in on. Tvoz | talk 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Martin could have been a gazillionaire too. (But he probably is, isnt he?) I don't think we need to go into too much detail, at least not on Beatles or McCartney pages, just have the right names attached. Northern, I guess, could have some detail. Tvoz | talk

Anyway: The contract was only for 4 years, after which Starr and Harrison set up their own companies. They didn't write much before then so it was good for them. Len and Mac went for the whole hook, line and sinker routine. So:

For every 100 Dollars income:

50% to James for Publishing – 50% to James for Royalties = 50

25% to Len Mac for Publishing – 25% to Len Mac for Royalties = 25

James gets 50 Dollars

Epstein takes 25% off Len and Mac = 12.50 Dollars

Len gets 18.75 Dollars Mac gets 18.75 Dollars

andreasegde gets fu#k all 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I get this part - $50 to James, Epstein's cut off of Lenmac comes to $12.50 and Len and Mac each get $18.75. The part I wasn't getting was above that - when you say

50% to James for Publishing – 50% to James for Royalties = 50

25% to Len Mac for Publishing – 25% to Len Mac for Royalties = 25

but it looks like you took that bit out so now I can go and eat hungry

Publishing contracts:

A normal contract is 60-40, 70-30, or 80-20 (depending on the level of exertion a publisher is committed to, like getting out of bed in the morning.) Royalties are the big thing (radio plays) because publishing is just music books/sheets, which nobody wants anymore.

The Beatles and forking articles

Knackered

Mimi Smith

Lennon

archive

Mimi Smith

Archive

Split infinitives

Dashed clever what?

Mimi

Multiple personalities

May

Tank

Good!

Trumpet Solo (Voluntary)

Feeling Bewitched?

Paul McCartney

Humour Warning!

Paul McCartney

Football

And now for something a little different....