User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 18

Leeds United

Not doing too bad, eh? --andreasegde (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon photo

Hi, Someone sent it to Wikicommons, and it has a red x -- is it marked for deletion? We have permission from Bob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They think it has not been verified yet. --andreasegde (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the compliments. Not that I don't appreciate them, but what prompted them? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seemed to be getting some flak, and I thought it was a bit vicious. --andreasegde (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea verily I say unto thee

Alright Our Kid? Av a Butcher's at The Fabs talk page - I knew they were good, but it's better than that. Whip out yer guitar an we'll all have a chorus of "Flying Saucers Rock n Roll"! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It beggars belief. --andreasegde (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You forgot to put that Lemon zapped Sooty with a Ray-Gun! Kaptin Nerk 17:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sooty was innocent, because he was only a glove puppet that had problems with Sweep, who really only wanted to give Sue a bit of 'how's yer father'. (Am I on the wrong track here? :)) Bugger; I forgot to mention that Sooty's bass guitar was the time-warp porthole that allowed Macca to contact his music teacher on Zargon! --Captain, you earthlings are all so alone, which is why you have cats... (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another one to add to your collection...

		The Music Barnstar
		This is for all your hard work improving The Beatles articles. Thanks! - Rocket000 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you Sir. I have actually only got a handful of real barnstars - the others are just comic ones that Beatle editors send me to cheer me up, bless their little cotton socks... :) --andreasegde (talk) 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think I will join. I try not to sign up for every WikiProject I'm interested in because I tend to jump around a lot on Wikipedia. But because the Beatles are my favourite band I think I can stay dedicated enough to their articles to call myself a member. Thanks for the invite. Rocket000 (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. --Andy Crowd-Goes-Wild 02:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Please see the discussion here. There was a few problems with the images of the album cover use there. Problems specifically WP:NFCC #8 and #10. I don't believe there is significant (critical) commentary written on the album to warrent the inclusion of a non-free cover of the parent album. A seperate rationale for it's inclusion is also needed on the image descrpition page for fair use to qualify for that article. — Save_Us_229 18:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most certianly, those images are fine, feel free to place one of those in the infobox if you like, personally I think they look better the way they are though :) — Save_Us_229 19:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - the LSD blotting paper would be a little too much... :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably :) — Save_Us_229 20:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to say what, exactly?

I would like to know where the money is going. Who pays for Jimbo's trips to foreign countries? --Mr. Sceptical (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pick Up The Pieces.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pick Up The Pieces.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The passed word

I appreciate you passing on the word, Andreasegde. Unfortunately, even if Sixstring simply made numerous and repeated mistakes in licensing his images, he argued withand blanked an admin's page, and was punished for it as a vandal. Rather than cool off and seek reinstatement or edit quietly elsewhere, rogue but doing his best to follow the rules otherwise, Six then created not one, not two, not even three, but at least five different accounts, all to edit the same page and attack other editors, myself included. Whatever, good faith and chance he might have had to contribute with my blessing evaporated when he chose to insult me on the Lennon discussion page. Frankly, I don't care if Spindel and Six are long, lost brothers - any good faith has since evaporated. I mean, he is even using yet ANOTHER sock to edit. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. --andreasegde (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:She Saw The World.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:She Saw The World.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said what?

I have no idea, and I'm not sure if I want to know. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, and I wish I had a little bit more (I really do, because thinking makes my brain hurt :)) --andreasegde (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am always up for getting more

I wasn't sure what I needed defense for. The Viriditas stuff? Not really a concern. Six-String? Even less so. I do want to point out that you do some really high quality, conscientious work, too. Where the hell are your accolades, man? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you made me laugh, as you often do, Arcayne. Bless your little cotton socks... :) It wasn't a defence/defense of you (because you don't need it, as you are highly capable of looking after yourself) it was just something I thought needed to be said about you, or even something I needed to say about good people who have a sense of humour and are intelligent. ('Crestville', 'Vera, Chuck and Dave', and 'Tvoz' will agree with me on this.)

Accolades? I'm not really interested, funnily enough, although the odd Barnstar is very nice, but never as nice as the first one (ahhh.. that's life, is it not?) Researching certain facts about this Beatles' stuff has proven to be very worthwhile, because I have realised that there a lot of urban legends about. I love biographies, and I like them to be accurate, which they are often not. (I'm rambling now, but bear with me... :) For example: Lennon had three half-sisters, and two half-brothers, and McCartney has a step-sister. I have received e-mails from Bill Harry, the nurse who was with Mimi Smith when she died (her last words were "Hello John" - goosebumps, or what?) and recently, Roag Best. (These are accolades for me - thank you, the Internet.) Anyway, Julia Lennon was off her head (not referenced, but Lennon suposedly never had a good word to say about her) Alf Lennon was not the awful father he's made out to be, Mona Best was not a harridan but a loving mother, and Mal Evans was treated like shit, even though he contributed lyrics to Macca's songs. This is the fascinating stuff, which can reflect on our own lives.

I truly believe that these Wikipedia articles about The Beatles, and families/friends, are now the most complete that can be read/referenced. I once said that all The Beatles' articles should be a minimum GA, and I am working towards that, although I am running out of Beatles' people.. :) It's only a hobby, but I enjoy it.--andreasegde 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never say die

"Andreas College Cambridge, here is your starter for 10: where did Mona Best place her bet"? Bamber Gangerousgroin 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh, you bugger, Vera. You know I have no bleedin' idea, but I'll bet a penny to a pound that you do! Give me a few minutes, and I'll try and find the answer, or make a soddin' good guess... :)) For any interested readers, Vera is a scouser living down the smoke, so he knows his onions, the fecker :)) --andreasegde 02:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here they are:

Lion Bookmakers - 12 Mill Lane West Derby , Liverpool, L12 7JB
William Hill - 9-10 Swanside Parade, Liverpool, L14
William Hill - 367 Edge Lane, Liverpool, L7 9LG

Ta-raaa! (or not??) Don't tell me it's the last one, or I'll get freaked and hide under the bed... --andreasegde 02:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just found out that Bamber Gascoine has NO entry in Wikpedia! --andreasegde 02:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or not my dear Shylock! More porkies methinks! None of em were licensed to take bets (even if they were there) until 1 May 1961. She would have had to lay the bet "on course" 186 miles away at Epsom, or with a back street bookie who would never have weighed out a double carpet. He would have given her back her stake (if she was lucky) an then told her to feck off! Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger me, Vera! (not physically, of course...) Are you saying what I think yer's saying? I'm gobsmacked. No bookies in 1954, in the Pool? I doff my cap to you Sir, and I hereby give you the title of "Bloodhound of the Year". No... I can't believe it. Are they really telling porkies? The feckers. --andreasegde 03:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Course they are! They can't help it they're scalleeeees! cheers la, Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's it. I'm gonna send a mail to Roag and ask him to come clean. (Uhh-err missus, wot contacts one has in low places after one has been on Bamberpedia for a bit :) --andreasegde 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell I'm nuthin, jus ask who accepted the bet. Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, I like yer style, me old fruitcake - will do. To tell you the truth though, when I was watching Pete on various video Internet sites telling the story, something in me water told me that he didn't look comfortable when he was telling the yarn.

P.S., Roag sent me a mail after I quizzed about the 1954/1957 anomaly, and he said the house was for sale in 1954, taken of [sic] the market and put back on in 1957. That was not they said in the book - or should I say bookies? :) --andreasegde 03:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah , well iffy our kid! Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger, this means Mona Best and The Casbah Coffee Club will need some rewriting, and they're both up for GAs. The Bests also claim that 1,500 people attended the very last night when The Beatles played, which (in a cellar, however big) means my mother is my granny's uncle twice-removed, or I'm as daft as a brush (Basil's, of course.) --andreasegde 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHOUT!!! See yer kidda! Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There goes Vera, off into the night to quench the fires of London with his trusty hosepipe. What would we do without them? (Stand on a pile of ash that used to be a house the next morning after the fire, that's what). --andreasegde 03:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is one thing that bothers me; if she didn't win the bet (as is now the case) where did she get the money? The word nefarious is creeping into my mind. Hmmm... --andreasegde 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean"

Which I have done. I am now off to do some serious leaning (on a bar)... :) --andreasegde 15:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite lyrics

BUSY DOING NOTHING,

WORKING THE WHOLE DAY THROUGH

TRYING TO FIND LOTS OF THINGS NOT TO DO

BUSY GOING NOWHERE,

ISN'T IT SUCH A CRIME?

I'D LIKE TO BE UNHAPPY, BUT,

I NEVER DO HAVE THE TIME.... --andreasegde 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scalleees

Now I reckon the best thing to do is mail him ask im where she put the bet on-and with any luck, he'll make a mistake, sumthin like: "Oh aye she stuck it on at Dickie Drippin's down the Scottie Road" not knowin there were no legal bookies. Don't mention "on course", he'll make up some rubbish like they all went to Epsom for the weekend! Yeah? whatcha think la? Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already sent him one via the Casbah web page, exactly as you suggested. Very short and sweet, about where did she put on the bet, but no answer as of yet. I'm not holding me breath... --andreasegde 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold off to see If they can answer it. It's impairateeth that they say she stuck it on with an off course bookie, becos sure as eggs is eggs, an illegal bookie would have not paid up on a double carpet. Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)PS If she'd have had 2 bob on it, maybe 10 bob yeah, but no way would he have weighed her out enough to buy a 15 bedroom house,! Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that she won enough to put down a deposit for a mortgage on the house. It must have been a hefty deposit though, because of the size of the bleedin' place. Of course, they're topping it up by saying she bought the gaff. --andreasegde 03:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just does not hold water! It's the classic example of them not doing proper research - just look for a horse that won at long odds, say that she placed a reasonable bet on it and of course wins big. It would have been far better for them to say that she went for broke, bet big on the National and won at 8/1 and it would have been possible and legal for her to have done so. It's just a load of bollicks! Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right, my dear Vera, but I have no bleedin' idea what you are on about, having never put on a bet in my life (because I am a shit mathematician and a financial coward) but how can one prove it without a firm declaration from the Best family about where they put on the bet? (You are now offering Scallee possibilities to them, to help them out of the big hole they are in. :) BTW, I once remember that Crestville once called you "Grumpy" (sorry, I'm laughing my bollocks off at the memories of the good old days.) It's lovely to see your old self back....

If they don't answer my question, I suggest that YOU send them a mail (on the Casbah page) politely asking them the same question. I think it would be interesting to push them a bit on this. What sayeth you? (Am I "two sheets to the wind", or not? I am, as it turns out, but you would never guess from my tiping on the kiyboard :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I hope the Bests are not watching these pages.. --andreasegde (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Two shits to the wind? That Austlalian lager must be strong - Yorkshiremen don't get drunk, yor avin me on:) What I mean is they think it makes more sense to people that they won a lot of money (with a reasonable amount of money) on a long shot, rather than on a horse with shorter odds, with a large bet, it's tantamount to sayin than they won the lottery yeah? Anyway, I'll have a bash at em, see wot happens suggest you archive the page to stymie em! btw yor mob won 3 - 0 tonight. Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(A rather less drunk andreasegde) Yes!! On both counts. Cheers, la. --andreasegde (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now, and of course, it's a good story isn't it? A 33-1 rank outsider, and Lester Piggott (the housewives' favourite) to boot. My Aunty Pat used to go out with Bobby Charlton for a short while, but that's probably also dubious...

I now discount the whole horse story; it's bollards, although I wonder where they really got the cash from. Was it the Shaws? (Mona's Mother and father; probably a little bit). Was it something nefarious? The jewellery comes to mind (as in, she pawned it). It doesn't take a giant leap to think that maybe there were some dealings in goods that had been 'appropriated'. Buying a house that big (even in 1957) would have entailed a very large mortgage, as buying it outright would have been way too much. Maybe that's why she started the Casbah, as she was running out of cash. She paid the Fabs 3 quid a night for the whole band, but made (with 300+ customers - I don't believe the "up to 1,500" bollards) 15 quid a night, minus the Fabs 3 quid money, plus annual membership fees of about 52 quid a year. That kind of business-thinking does not lead one to to believe that she pawned all her jewels and laid it on a rank outsider. Ho-hum... --andreasegde (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's total bollicks! and as for 300, let alone 1,500 - who issued the safety certificate? A mentally impaired chimpanzee? Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! 1,500 on the last night? Santa came early that year. "Safety Certificate" - bloody good idea, oh fire-fighting one. Hold on, did they have them back then? After the War an' all... :)) Can you picture it... in the cellar with wood on the walls, an esspresso machine, no ventilation, and (possibly, but probably true) only one escape route. Good grief, it's a miracle Mona wasn't arrested. --andreasegde (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hod-on Kidda, I see a way of putting an Urban Legend section into the article (maybe we could come up with a better Header). The bet and the fire safety certificate (with links, of course) would do it. You could track down the fire stuff (as you did with the betting office thing). Not that I have anything against Mo, but the truth will out, as someone famous once said.--andreasegde (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betting shops become legal [1] gettin fire stuff will be harder. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, application would have gone to Liverpool City Council - no way way of checking if saftey cert was granted, would have been stored on cards prob lost by now, eaten by rodents anything, even destroyed. But they would have needed public liability insurance. Fire Officer would then assess risk to audience, staff and performers. Check wiring, look for highly flamable materials etc. would want to see Crash Doors (push bar emergency exits), emergency lighting, fire extinquishers toilets etc. Would a Saftey Cert have been granted? Fire Officer with heap big pips on shoulder, he say: "Feck off"! Cheers Kidda. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images were tagged and deleted as being "replaceable", AKA free images of the people could reasonably be found, without copyright. We prefer free images on Wikipedia, as opposed to copyrighted ones. Let me know if you have any further questions. нмŵוτн τ 17:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"images of the people could reasonably be found". My point is the word "reasonably". Should I fly to Majorca and track down Cynthia in her private retreat? BTW, " We prefer free images on Wikipedia". Who is "We"? Since when have I not been a part of Wikipedia? --andreasegde (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A) It doesn't mean it can be reasonably found by you; simply that it can reasonably be found. There are free images out there or new ones that can be created that have the same information as these images.

B) "We" refers to Wikipedia's editors, developers, etc. This does include you. It's the community as a whole, based on consensus. нмŵוτн τ 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think "we" would rather have a fair-use image than none at all. I challenge anyone to "reasonably" find a picture of Cynthia without incurring great costs, unless they are in Majorca, that is. Any editors in Majorca willing to stake-out Cynthia's house to get a photo? Don't worry, Wikipedia will pay your bail after you get arrested for stalking. :) (Sounds of deafening silence, methinks..) --andreasegde (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchy

I found this out a few months ago, and it's here again, as it always was. The Project quality task force is another example. Wikipedia needs more writers, less editors, and less self-appointed policemen. Answers to: Mr. Angry, Flip-out Mansion, Up-Yours Street, Somewheresville. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ringo Hey Jude.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ringo Hey Jude.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No questions - just do it. I would really like to look at a black and white text-only version of Wikipedia, because I'm colour blind, and photos send me into fits of laughter. :) The only problem is this: One can delete the infobox photo, but what about the other photos in any article? They are also fair-use. I say delete 'em all, because "I love the smell of napalm in the morning". --andreasegde 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim and Mary McCartney

GA nomination on hold. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, looks like it passed - congrats! Them Mohins'll be real proud. Tvoz |talk 06:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dey'll be doin' da dancin' up an' down da High Street, so dey will. --Didlly-didlley-dee-da-diddly-dee (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way- is it just me, or does anyone else think Paul's "grandfather" from A Hard Day's Night bears more than a passing resemblance to Jim? Tvoz |talk 06:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have a point, as Wilfred Pickles (actor) was playing Macca's grandpa in the film, was he not? --andreasegde (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday

I am waiting for 1.30 or, as it was crossed out by my mother, 2.45, as it will be then my birthday. It is now (by my computer clock) 01:28...... --andreasegde 00:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday Sir Sean - 21 today!

We thought it was the 9th! Tony, Collette XX, Poppy XXXX, Sammie XXX, and Blue Watch —Preceding comment was added at 02:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Uhhh.... lovely. --andreasegde (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and many more

It's really not the 8th yet here in New York,
but............ happy birthday!!
Hugs
Tvoz |talk 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

At least there's something good about the 8th of December. Thanks, Tvoz. --andreasegde (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, that cake says "95" on it!! :)) --andreasegde (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

95! Lol! This'll cheer yer up: Leeds 4 Huddersfield 0. Have a good one! Cheers pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to break all the rules here by saying, Yes, you fuckers, Lee---eds United, up yer arse, you FA wankers, we're going back up you shit-faces.... (Sorry about that..) --andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sod it - it's me birthday - Whoahhh,,,,, 4-0 - hiiiiiiiiii... (No I'm not that drunk, just being being silly... :) Love to all of you, because love is always better than hate, which is a disgusting thing. --andreasegde (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eggzakerly! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Best GA On-Hold

I just reviewed Mona Best, an article you nominated for Good Article status. I've placed it on hold for now and left some notes on the talk page. It's just a few quick fixes, but wanted to let you know. (On an unrelated note, Happy Birthday) Phydend (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

This user helped promote Mona Best to good article status.

- I've just reviewed the article again and everything looks fine now so I passed it. Good job and congratulations. Phydend (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, Sir. Marvellous - and on my birthday as well! "Nothing could be finer than to be in Carolina in the - morning..." --andreasegde (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argument

M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument about an article please, on Wikpedia, if you don't mind.

R: Certainly sir. Have you edited an article before?

M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.

R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument about an article, or were you thinking of signing up to Wikipedia?

M: Well, what's the cost?

R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one article and then see how it goes.

R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.

R: Mr. DeBalkey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barking-dog; room 12.

M: Thank you.

--andreasegde (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who can't stop himself??? John Cardinal (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just won't give up. --andreasegde (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name appeared here, now it doesn't. Physician, heal thyself. John Cardinal (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to be archived... --andreasegde (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ello Sailor

Foriegn Johnnies 0 Merseyshirepool Rangerbirds 4 Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Da' is fecking grate, da' is. --andreasegde (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dust up

On Tuesday afternoon (east coast USA time) I saw a very minor cut/paste error in an edit you made. I was going to fix it, but stopped because I didn't want to take a chance of restarting our recent hostilities. Now, a few hours later, I think that's crazy. We both edit way too many of the same articles for me to stop touching them. So what gives? Does this most recent dust up mean we're enemies forever? John Cardinal (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't - I can't hold a grudge for that long. (It was a good old punch-up though, even though they make me feel ill... :) --andreasegde (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I'll go back to editing with wild abandon. (joke) John Cardinal (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scalleeeees

Sounds to me like a "certain family" need to buy a new house - say no more squire! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Day doo doh don't dey doh--Crestville (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joe by Crikey!! Are you back from Inja? Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I am.--Crestville (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodness gracious me. The burning (pun intended) question is: Did ya get Bombay belly? Could ya do it thru' the eye of a needle? The Backdoor trots, the runs, or Montezuma's revenge? Strange question to ask, I know, but one wonders about these things on dark, winter evenings... --Sir Henry Crapper, BSC (Bronze Swimming Certificate) (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no.--Crestville (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, the hot nights in Inja, the fragrant aroma of curry wisping its way across the verandah, and the mad rush to get to the bog and open the sluice gates at both ends... --Ramadajh Chindrapoor (Supplier of Medicines) (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eeeeeeww--Crestville (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon's Nutopia

Do we need a citation if I said the entire press conference can be seen in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotcop2 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we do - just to prove that the DVD exists. I've just put one in about the web page. --andreasegde (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder image

I know you don't like using it, but I respect that you cowboyed up and put a working image in there. consider it temporary, until HotCop can get the copyright holder to release the image (reality says its doubtful, but I've been wrong before). I just wanted you to know that I think you're a swell person. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks r'kid. Will do, over and ~~out~~ Ouch, Vera, Chuck and Dave! --andreasegde (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]