User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 10

A statement

As I am not a member of The Beatles' project, I see no reason to abide by its policy rules, as it does not represent Wikipedia as a whole, but insists on enforcing its own self-determined policy on contributors. I truly believe that this is dictatorial, and does not have anything to do with the true purpose of Wikipedia. The Beatles' project is a break-away group, and should be reminded of what Wikipedia really is. andreasegde 18:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with this statement. Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to post this everywhere. Also, you had no problems sticking with the policy when you agreed with it! --kingboyk 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

However:

I've removed it. As you know, I agree with you that "in most cases the correct form is "The Beatles"". However, the policy was changed to "the Beatles" apparently with good grounds and after debate. I proposed overturning but was advised against it. Since we can't seem to reach an agreement, and since I'm sick to death of the squabbling, I've just zapped the guideline altogether. Let's see if it sticks.

Now, as far as I'm concerned the project can be marked as {{inactive}}. --kingboyk 19:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)

I see no way that they can defend their policy. What are they going to say? Only members of the project are allowed to edit articles about The Beatles? And when you do, you have to use "the" or you will be blocked, shot, tortured, sued, hit, bit, kicked or tickled to death with a copy of "the" New York Times? Justice for The 96! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well put. andreasegde 19:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The problems with that statement are 1) "us and them"; why are you "them" and not "us"?! 2) the policy was changed after input from people I'm not familiar with, presumably non members or less than active members. 3) you didn't complain about the existence of the policy when it was "The". You're slagging off the Project I founded, and by implication me, when in fact I agree with you, and it seems a tad unfair! --kingboyk 19:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Apparently you didn't know about it until recently, that's cool :) --kingboyk 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Would I attack you? Don't be a silly-billy, I wouldn't dream of it. You founded it, Kingboyk (and you are to be commended) but your babies are throwing themselves out with the bathwater. It seems that the asylum has now allowed itself to have a key to the front door. andreasegde 19:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aye. So what to do about it? Wrap it up as past it's sell by date? --kingboyk 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you return to the old policy? There were/are still only 2 or 3 people who wanted it to be changed to "the" in the first place, and how they managed to achieve this with so many people opposing them is still beyond my comprehension Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I started writing a draft to do just that, but it lead to this thread.

The situation at the moment is that there is no project policy. If you guys want to change it back, I don't oppose (of course) but really I'm seeing two clear options here:

1. Say we have no policy on this, everybody kisses and makes up, and we get on with serious stuff.

2. We close the project. (Or, at least, I quit too, you stay quit, and it probably dies because nobody is left).

I really wouldn't be unhappy with either outcome. Wikipedia is more important than WikiProject The Beatles, after all :) --kingboyk 20:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What about geting rid of The Beatles' policy? It is redundant and exclusive, and is not a part of Wikipedia's policy. Let the GA/FA reviewers decide on it (as one said: "Make it big T or small t"). McCartney failed its FA, but not because of the definite article. Let's go out into the big wide world, and present articles to be reviewed. andreasegde 20:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the policy page altogether you mean? Archive it? Nominate it for deletion? Either of those would be fine by me. If you mean get rid of a the/The policy, I already did (but I've not checked yet whether anybody reverted).

That said, I'm not against just archiving the WikiProject as something that was fun while it lasted but has had it's day.

Thoughts? --kingboyk 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the project is a really great thing, because it brings people together who have a shared interest in a common goal (as I have always thought/hoped for). What I disagree with is that the idea/policy is a law unto itself, and can define what is right or wrong, and can even call people vandals for not adhering to its policy. This is not Wikipedia - it is 'the Beatles Wikipedia'.

I would be extremely happy to see three or four Beatles' articles (or articles about The Beatles) going up for GA/FA every single month, but that has not been the case. The reviewers don't care at all about the big 'T' or the small 't' at all, they only want it to be constant, which means that they don't care about which it is... Give me fifteen editors that are all battling to get a Beatles' article (or an article about The Beatles) to GA/FA, and I will be happy. This project can not see the wood for the trees, and it's time to shit or get off the pot (excuse my language). andreasegde 01:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes I know! I know how you feel about that, and hopefully you know I agree with you :) What, though, do you propose is done? Let me know, and it seems half way sensible and achievable, I'll do it! :) --kingboyk 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to rejoin WikiProject The Beatles

Dear esteemed editor and former member of WikiProject The Beatles,

Debate over "policy" recently overheated, to the detriment of the WikiProject and Wikipedia. As part of the fallout, you resigned from the Project.

I now believe, thanks in part to your input, that the WikiProject doesn't need "policy", so I have tagged the page as historical and blanked it. I would like to invite you to:

• Rejoin the project
• Edit and trim the project page and template mercilessly, to reflect a new focus of working to produce featured content on The Beatles (or "the Beatles", it's your choice)
• Help bring the next newsletter up to date and get it released.

It's your Project, please consider taking it back and shaping it into the Project you want it to be.

If it turns out that people aren't interested in rejoining and refocussing the Project I'm perfectly happy with that, and will resign myself and suggest tagging the Project as inactive. My role has always been primarily organisational, and if I don't have the support of good editors like yourself it's totally pointless carrying on. Lar and I started the Project because we felt one were needed, it is not and has never been a vanity exercise and we both have other things we could be doing.

PS: Mine's a London Pride. --kingboyk 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew, I think I messaged everybody who quit over this affair, if I missed anybody please let me know. --kingboyk 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you rejoining? Do we have a project for you to rejoin?

Perhaps we should take a look at the contribs of people signed up, and move those who are missing to an inactive list? Then we'll have a better idea of whether we actually have any membership. No members == no project. --kingboyk 12:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mimi

We have a constructive oppose on Mimi's FAC (an "oppose for now" with a lot of helpful detail). I'll work my way through the objection, fixing the easy stuff and commenting. Expect a call from me later asking you to fix some things! :) This is good news by the way, a serious reviewer has given us things to work on and hasn't opposed outright. --kingboyk 16:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Get to work please, young man

The first thing I'd like you to work on please mate is:

• The Stanley family bit should be told from Mimi's perspective alone and begin by explaining Mimi's relation to the Stanley family. As it is now, this section starts rather enigmatically. Also, I fail to see the relevance of Mimi's mother hating the devil's English; it is not used anywhere.

--kingboyk 16:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. I'm so excited to be conversing with a member of U2! |-)

• Please try to find a photo of Mimi, with a source. I'm happy to take care of the fair use rationale. --kingboyk 17:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I can't find much on Google Images. This picture is nice, but the web page doesn't say who took it. Do you have any pictures of Mimi in books and, if you do, do you have a scanner? --kingboyk 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Still in the Stanley family section: why is performing a matriarchal role opposed to being dressed conservatively?
  • Good question. I've added a {{fact}} tag to the matriarchal role statement (I'm sure it's true, but let's have a citation), and I've removed the strange "dressed conservatively" juxtaposition. Andrew you might want to put that statement back, with a citation, into a better position if you think it's important. --kingboyk 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• "What changed her mind with regard to her getting married? Just the ultimatum? I got a feeling from the previous paragraph that that wouldn't be enough." --kingboyk 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• "I would like to know what Mimi's reaction was to the acquittal of the officer." Or, indeed, a little more about how Mimi felt about Julia's death, rather than how John felt. --kingboyk 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• I put in everything that was written about Mimi - if anything is missing, it's because it was not written about. I would also like to know how she felt about certain things, but it's not in the books. Bugger. Why doesn't someone write a book about her and Yoko?
  • OK, if the books don't say, nor do we. That's entirely fine. --kingboyk 11:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Can I scan a photo and then say it's fair/free use? I don#t the rules. If it's possible, I'll do it, forthwith.
  • What we need is a photo which has a credit, as most photos in books do. We can't claim it as free because it's owned by somebody, but if we know who took or owned it we can at least give them credit and claim fair use (which means "this picture is copyright, but it's fair to use it under US law because there's no free alternative"). You take care of the scanning and typing in the credit, I'll take care of the legalese. --kingboyk 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I'll do the citations (Good God - reading the whole thing again? OK...) I was careful about putting too many citations in (remember Macca?) but I'll stuff more in. Most of them are on the same page... andreasegde 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Only the things that the editor has specifically queried. No, I don't really remember the Macca FA as I wasn't active at the time; I don't know why that failed (and was a little surprised), I'll have to take a look! Perhaps we should dust that article off and have another go? --kingboyk 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rutles cartoon

...was just a bit of fun. There is no WikiProject The Rutles, and the cartoon is some free art created especially for Wikipedia. I thought it would be fun to feature it. Perhaps I can find somewhere else to put it. Cheers. --kingboyk 18:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That was silly on my part, because it slightly obscured the Status List that I liked looking at so often to feel good. Six GAs? C'mon you Reds... andreasegde 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean 6 GAs? Is that your tally? That's pretty damned good if it is. If you mean me, it's 17 GAs and 4 and a half FAs actually :) (I claim The Orb as half, because it was mostly the work of another editor, but I provided him with sources and advice, and helped out at FAC stage). --kingboyk 12:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

17 GAs? You little bugger... :)) andreasegde 20:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I love Kingboyk, and I don't care who knows it

I will get onto the Mimi stuff tommorrow (after work) and I really, truly, appreciate your comments. I only want to see lots of Beatles' aricles as GA, and later FA, because that is what they deserve. I love working with a team, and (even if nobody believes this) I truly enjoy working on articles and having a good laugh at the same time.

Being a pendantic sort of do-gooder/pain in the arse, I would suggest asking all the people who have 'adopted' an article when it wil be ready for a GA review. It's called "pull your finger out", or as the honourable Less Heard van U says, "Put up or shut up", with which I totally agree. andreasegde 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

good on ya, mate. ++Lar: t/c 02:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do Admins always have talk pages that look so good? It makes us lesser mortals feel that we have a lot to learn (and we do...) but it's really because they deserve the title of Admin. It's a hard job and someone has to/they do it. Respect is due. andreasegde 02:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

er... thanks! (I think) as to why? Perhaps because we spent way too much time faffing around here on wikipedia fiddling with our user pages, and not enough on more serious matters??? (you know the sort of which I speak... debating Initialisms, writing grandiose plans to create Articles that Matter in our Lists of Things to Do and then alphabetising the lists, crusading against needless (and/or pink) userboxes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...) ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a "Thank you". Accept it for the simple fact that you were nice and positive. It doesn't mean anything else, but is quite simply saying thanks. I thank you. It's nice to be simple and honest. andreasegde 03:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:) Well, thanks for the thanks then! :)... and here I was having fun taking the piss out of what I seem to work on :) ++Lar: t/c 10:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that people who have adopted an article should be encouraged to get it to GA or FA, but ask nicely please eh? :)

As for loving me, since you're really Andrew not Andrea I'll have to pass, but thanks for the thought :)

My talk page: it looks pretty because a lovely Wikifairy designed it for me. It's not my work. It looks like I know what I'm talking about because as Lar says I simply spend way too much time here :P If I was getting paid a consultant's rate for my work on wiki I'd be one rich bunny by now. Instead it might be claimed I'm a mug! :) --kingboyk 12:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please try and add edit summaries mate, especially when you're working on a Featured Article Candidate - it helps the rest of us see what you're doing without having to scrutinise your edits :) There's detailed help about the feature at Help:Edit summary, and I'm available to answer any questions. You might also want to look at my contributions to see how I do it. --kingboyk 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think one thing you might be doing wrong is putting your edit summary into the area with asteriskes? It shows like this:

→I think Penny Lane should not be linked, as it is not an article.

The bit inside the asterisk is supposed to be the name of the section, and it gets added by the Mediawiki software so there's no need to change it.

When I clicked on this section just now, Mediawiki put "/* Edit summaries */ " into the edit summary box for me. I then type "A note about edit summaries" after that, so it looks like this:

/* Edit summaries */ A note about edit summaries

Which will give an edit summary of:

(→Edit summaries - A note about edit summaries)

The diff showing my edit summary

Easie peasie, I hope? :) --kingboyk 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it... andreasegde 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody buy the man a drink! --kingboyk 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't bought me a drink for Macca getting a GA. This will mean two drinks now. You're running up a bar tab that I may cash in one day... :)) andreasegde 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! The man has a good memory! We'll have to get together some time, with Lar too: I've lost count of how many drinks he owes me! --kingboyk 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the many pints you owe ME, lad, that you've lost count of. Well no worries, I always buy rounds early when it's cheaper anyway. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Which pub is this then? It's cheaper when it's earlier, or do you drink cocktails (Happy Hour and all that)? Maybe Lar is a skinflint, cheapskate, tight-fist, right-handed but keeps his wallet in his left pocket, or is temporarily deaf when anyone tells him it's his round. :))andreasegde 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's cheaper because the rounds are SMALLER... less yobs to buy for. ++Lar: t/c 22:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is this? Friggin Alcoholics Unanimous Oxfordshire in friggin London?? George Smith a small but well built milkman

We're having a bit of a chin-wag about the drinks that Kingboyk owes me, the drinks that kingboyk owes Lar, and how he's gonna pay for them all, especially when he's potless (meaning he doesn't have a pot to piss in = skint/having no financial resources for the 'enigma/you're talking in code' crowd). I think it's time to send the bailiffs in. andreasegde 22:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Me doth protest. The amount of drinks Lar owes me is greater than the sum of what I owe you and what I can drink. I needn't even bring my wallet. --kingboyk 23:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's so not true, you owe me lorryfuls, laddie. ++Lar: t/c 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediawiki has a very clever feature, Lar: it remembers every single edit! Somewhere in that vast database is promises of beer for Steve, from Lar, and in large quantities! :) --kingboyk 11:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good luck finding those diffs, mate... My email has a very clever feature too: it has a user that is a packrat. Somewhere in that vast email database is promises of far more beer for Lar, from Steve. So that would sort that. But in any case, just get to be in the same place as me, and we'll decide who buys later. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is fab - we have two well-respected admins here arguing about whose round it is :)) Let's flip a coin - double or quits? :) andreasegde 13:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Two well-respected admins?! If you say so! --kingboyk 14:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Would I lie to you? BTW, I've got a nice little Morris Minor here that the vicar's wife only used to drive to church on Sundays, and I'll give you a good deal on it... andreasegde 14:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sold! --kingboyk 14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh... a sucker for the good old days, quarter light windows, leather seats, extruding indicators, and a speedometer so small you need a magnifying glass to see that you still haven't reached 40mph after 3 minutes... "Memories, like the corners of my shed..." I'll have it delivered to you by RAC pick-up truck on Monday, with the hundredweight of bananas you asked for. :) andreasegde 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here lies...

That phrase, "a small, but well-built milkman" still makes me laugh, because - as you look at it again and again - it seems to be the most stupid phrase I have ever written, even though I copied it from a book. Think about his gravestone and you will get it: "Here lies George Toogood Smith - a small, but well-built milkman". What a bleedin' epitaph, and of course it would have to be a scouser that saw the humour in it before anybody else did. It cracks me up... :)) (I'm still laughing...) andreasegde 22:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yor not wrong there! When we was in The Dingle there was an auld lad with wooden legs and he was waiting on the corner one day an our Mam said, "Ah God love him, look at him standin there without a leg under him! Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahh.. the wonderful innocent simplicity of humour. My grandad has a wooden leg (true) and when he was waiting for a bus to arrive somebody said, "How yer getting on?" andreasegde 23:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice one our kid :) Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Three crazed Chelsea females want to know do you want updates on the score? Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The 'Pool versus the Blues? How's it going? andreasegde 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Chelski 1 - 0 The Chosen Ones Full Time.

I'll bet you don't need nail-clippers in yer house, they'll all be down to the bone by now... :) andreasegde 19:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I need a friggin drink!

Very poor performance on our part. They're runnin round the house like loonies, but I told em they needed more than one goal to take to Anfield! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks brilliant! But £245? Jesus, what do they bring it in - a JCB?? Cheers Pal Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Support for Mimi Smith

Hooray, we converted the opposition to a support. He's a serious reviewer so that's good news. I'm a bit headachey at the mo, so I won't respond to his other small quibbles until tommorow. Well done mate, let's hope we get a few more supporters soon. --kingboyk 23:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken care of it, so drink some Lem-sip and go to bed. BTW, Mimi an effin' FA? If she gets it, I will not know what to think... this is weird...andreasegde 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Message from Errabee

I just wanted to let you know personally that I believe you two have done a great job on Mimi Smith, and I believe the article has improved considerably. I now fully support FA-status, and I want to congratulate you on a job well done! Errabee 23:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you sir, for bringing up some very pertinent questions. You did a very fine job. andreasegde 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

I will upload some photos of Mimi and one of Epstein. Why do I have to scan them first? andreasegde 12:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Generally because it's impossible to upload a book?! :P --kingboyk 12:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I got it wrong, because I have just read that it's not allowed to take them from the internet, which I thought yours was from. andreasegde 12:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Any news on the photo? We only want one picture of Mimi, a picture with a credit. Just one, no more! :) --kingboyk 13:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for my neighbour, who has a scanner, to turn up. Should be here today, or tomorrow. BTW, do I upload it just as Mimi Smith, or to any particular place (No, don't say Wikipedia :) Commons, or anything? andreasegde 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It can't go on to Commons, because it's not free. You can upload it to Mimi Smith.image or whatever name you like, provided the name isn't already taken. --kingboyk 13:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A joke from Poppy

Why did the sand get wet? Because the Sea - Weed! Poppy XXXX

Why are there no aspirins in the jungle? Because the parrots eat 'em all (Paracetomol) andreasegde 15:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Try saying "Elephant juice" slowly through a window when the person can't hear you on the other side, and then ask them what you said. andreasegde 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They both said Elephant Juice? Having said that, it was their Mam that pulled it on em and her annunciation, like theirs, is perfect. They are now both standing at the porch door, trying it on passers by, and the ones that don't know em, think they're seeing double - hilarious! Wots it supposed to come out as? Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be seen as "I love you".. but not you personally, you big strapping bloke what likes risking life and limb for strangers. :) andreasegde 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yor right! Some lad has just said it back to em! They've both gone a little bit red - they should be used to it by now though, they are absolutely stunning, and The wonderful thing is they don't know it! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait until they're teenagers...andreasegde 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No, go on tell us tell us! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC) (Vera means the paper bag trick) andreasegde 19:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yes! That is ACE! I'm password protected now, so they can't see my page an they're goin bonkers! Teenagers? They'll be lucky if I let em cross the door! No, don't even go there!!! Cheers Pal Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess wot our andrea? They know how to do it! bloody Google post our pages on the net! Did you know that? I didn't! They just fed in the user name and up it popped! Still I would have told em anyway, so they could pull it on their mates. Very good advice, which I can assure you they are both well aware of. Luckily just like their looks, (which comes from their Mam) they get their grey matter from the same place, so they should be OK. But as long as they are well adjusted, kind and loving and always know right from wrong,(which they are and do), they can be what ever they want to be. Fries or the Prize? Only time will tell dear andrea! Cheers Our Kid, Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clever little buggers! (Excuse my french...) You're going to have a handful with them, but maybe they will provide for you in your old age one day, when you are sitting in your rocking chair and dreaming of burning the house down so you could save yourself... :)) I'll try that on Google now, by gad... andreasegde 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Told yer! Bright as the Borough Commander's buttons! Blimey, Crestville must be rollin in it, who'd a thought it eh? And I've got the best page on the site! Cheers Pal, Amir Editor

You got hit by a vandal

[1] I shouldn't laugh - Mr Wales, sir!!! --kingboyk 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It scared my pants off, which means I'll have to get a fresh pair of a gentlemen's undergarments out of the airing cupboard. Funnily enough, it said that ALL my edits would be reverted. I wonder who would have got that shit job? andreasegde 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And I thought Sir Sean de Garde was at it again! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oust the sock puppet! Burn the sock puppet! Castrate the Peado! sock puppet! --Dayle E. Mailreader 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have upset a certain someone a mite. I don't mind the ousting, the burning might be a tad uncomfortable, but could you do the cutting off of the private bits after the burning? I do like to look my best in the morning. andreasegde 19:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I got one of those back in Feb this year. No reason. I was blocked indefinitely for being me, I guess. It was placed and removed while I was offline, so all I saw was the revert on my watchlist. LessHeard vanU 23:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. Andrew got "blocked" for being a sockpuppet of Jimbo Wales!! And there was me thinking he's the lead guitarist out of U2 - how wrong can you be?! :) --kingboyk 23:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh, Jimbo? I don't speak to him (and he has, admittedly, never spoken to me) since he referred to mere editors on his verification fiasco talkpage. LessHeard vanU 00:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fibber! You posted to User talk:Jimbo Wales on the 25th...

Unless... hmm... maybe it's all a charade, and you are the Wales sockpuppet?! --kingboyk 00:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I was responding to someone who was addressing Jimbo. They wanted Mr Wikipedia but got Mr PickyPedia (and a mere editor at that!) :~D LessHeard vanU 09:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes guys, y'all got it right, I am the one and only - all this talk about Mimi's knickers and Epstein's underwear is just a front. I am leading The Warriors Against 't', which unfortunately is called TWAt by the lower (t) classes. I will discuss this problem with my co-warriors before we launch an all-out doughnut attack against the Wikipedia office (finding a cupboard under the stairs somewhere in the vastness of America is not that easy, y'know.) Mr. James Wales, whose parents had a cool sense of humour 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to form a group called TWAt, Drew? Don't you think that would undermine our point a bit? You fool! I propose we be called "Fighters Underlining Correct Kings Inglish Not Generalised Crappy Unacceptable Nasty "t's" Sir!!". I can see no possible flaw in this name. Why can't you be more sensible like me?--Crestville 14:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your wisdom sir, and will inform the Warriors after our "designer supermarket bag" attack on the Trotter's Independent Traders factory - for using a sexist/abusive acronym purely for the purpose of getting a cheap laugh on a well-known BBC channel. Mr. Jim from Wales 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am shocked. Shocked! Tvoz |talk 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tvoz, we are jesting. Having a laugh, joking a bit, playing with the tickling stick and guffawing a bit (well, I am, at least... :) Wait a minute - "the scary one" is shocked? What have we been doing? andreasegde 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

so was I - it was my response to your acronym just above. And to the idea that you are a Jimbo sockpuppet, which is actually too funny for words.Tvoz |talk 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wales

James Wales should be careful - there are 65 "James Wales" in Great Britain. [192.com] What's to stop one of them signing in as Jimmy, Jimbo or James Wales? It reminds me of the guy who opened a web account called "shell.com" - (his surname was Shell, BTW) Shell went mad and tried to buy it off him for trillions, but he refused, although he later sold it to them (for a vast sum no doubt.) The real Edge, and not David Evans (real name) from U2 16:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Everyone in the U2 mega-concern calls D. Evan's parents "Mr. and Mrs. Edge", which riles me no end...If I had a pound for every time....

I am bored

I'm waiting for my neighbour to scan some photos for Mimi, waiting for another comment on Mimi Smith's FA review, and waiting for a GA review for Brian Epstein. I'm bored - so bored that I'm watching a cooking programme (with the showbizzy Ainsley Harriott) about the top ten things to eat before you die on BBC Prime. How bored is that? andreasegde 17:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, maybe I should look at Klaus Voormann, because he's interesting. The only problem is that as soon as I get my nose in the books something catastrophic will happen. Do I, or don't I? You're dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't... andreasegde 17:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)