User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 30

Deletion of humorous conversation

20:07, 16 July 2009 Radiopathy (talk | contribs) m (43,884 bytes) (→One After 090909: deleted per WP:Talk_pages#Important notes)

Which is why it is here... Enjoy.

One After 090909

Beatle people, I have an idea! Remember that Greek island we tried to buy once, but it wasn't for sale? You know, the guitar-shaped one, back in the good old days, like, how it used to be when there were only, well, you know, four of us. It's all so much more complicated now the band has grown so much but, you know, we can work it out and all that, and the island's for sale now so why don't we buy it between us!

Just think, we can set up our computers all round the edge of a big room, facing out so we don't have to, you know, look at each other all the time, and work together on our shining Flagship and Sphinxes that way, you know, our Real Anthology this time, straight onto Wikipedia. If anyone sees us there and tries to get us to reform the band, we can just remind them, "We were just a bloody rock and roll band. The records are there, you can listen to them. Even bloody remastered CDs. Bloody good but bloody rock and roll band.", that kind of thing. And if any of us needs sorting out, you know, oy, citation needed, anything like that, we can just lean over our shoulder and call out to the person responsible. Not all disagreements would have to involve too much physical violence, and we could have a laugh together in the evenings too; some seafood, wine, well, certainly wouldn't want retsina more than once in a while but they must have proper stuff too these days; and then we can get the instruments out and play the old songs together, and maybe write some new ones too, or patch the old tapes onto new stuff, that kind of thing.

I'll bring the bass, and I've got quite a nice Les Paul copy and an acoustic too now; never did find out where my 12-string went but maybe I left the bathroom window open or something. Oh, andreasegde and John Cardinal and the other drummers, you'll have to decide between you whose kit to bring as there's quite a few of us now and the island isn't that big. Well everyone, what d'you think? (Only joking of course... aren't I?) Sir PL290 (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I might take the view of McCartney here, and say "Urgghhh", when confronted with the offer of close proximity to people I have never seen before, and only communicate with in black & white. There again, I do occasionally write to Kingboyk (one of the “Old Guard”) on Facebook, so I know what he looks like, but have never heard him speak. He may be a deaf mute for all I know, which would complicate things a tad. “It’s a quandary, that’s for sure”, said the man with a bird in his hand, as he hungrily eyed two plump pigeons in a bush. I digress…

Would it not be a little like Bletchley Park, but with sandals? People shouting across to each other all day about forward slashes, m-dashes and ISBN numbers, and, good grief, throughout the night? I have read about these Wiki-meetings across the globe, and how happy they are that they can turn up at a specified time and place and complain about people they have never met who don’t share the same viewpoint. It’s the guests that ruin this hotel, y’know. Personally, I would accept this island offer if it meant a full week of donning the headgear and gloves, fastening the shin pads and elbow protectors, and having a really good ding-dong with no chance of legal repercussions. Any chance of that? --andreasegde (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone makes the point that fastening shin pads and elbow protectors when you have boxing gloves on is nigh-impossible, I will scream.--andreasegde (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say it was nigh-impossible, but I couldn't find a suitable citation... — John Cardinal (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This is true, and you may laugh, but I honestly thought of you when I wrote that! :)--andreasegde (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the constitution for our micronation. We won't need an elected government, as this is the constitution that anyone can edit.

Island Constitution

1. No saying fastening shin pads and elbow protectors when you have boxing gloves on is nigh-impossible.
2. British Time shall apply, per WP:ENGVAR or Related Guideline. No arguing about whether it's night or day.
3. Badge to be worn at all times clearly displaying the individual's Wikipedia user name or erstwhile IP address.
4. Admins shall conduct WP:Sockpuppet investigations by peering discreetly over people's shoulders from time to time to make sure no-one's got more than one badge on.
5. WP:Blocking policy to be enforced by making people stand in the corridor.
6. Tea shall be served at 4 pm.

I think that covers it. If there's anything else, just add it (but remember, no warring please). PL290 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Admins shall be treated as common citizens, and have no rights other than their inalienable right to be called an Admin. Phrases such as, "The toilets need cleaning again", and "Get us a cuppa will ya, I'm gasping", shall be applicable to all citizens, and not just to Admins.
2. To maintain control of the population a secret police unit will be present, whose main job is to delete edits and photos on a purely random basis, thereby maintaining control by preventing anything that may be construed as the rising of the editing classes.
3. Payment for services rendered shall be decided by the GA reassessment committee (as they have so much time on their hands) although monies will be deducted for the referencing of any website that declares The Beatles as anything slightly better than "not bad".--andreasegde (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles infobox

Hello, my friend. Thanks for the compliment. I was kind of hoping that maybe you could actually fix-up those two openning paragraphs, and also in the infobox if you might link England as England, please. Seltaeb is a wonderful article you've created, and the work you've done with it is just truly amazing! I can see why you have so many Barnstars. Maybe I'll give you one in the future. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done 'em, apart from the "All Time", because that is how Rolling Stone printed it.--andreasegde (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again! I will award you with an (which will be your second) Original Barnstar on behalf of your work, mainly, for Seltaeb, if you alter the openning Beatles article sentence to read as this (note: it must be exactly like this): The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed at their native home of Liverpool, England in 1960. --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited it as I thought it should be.--andreasegde (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my friend...Look, the reason the wording must be as I've given you, is because it must read as that they are all from Liverpool, whereas, in what you've typed, it contradicts this, saying that they (may have only) formed there. Type it like this:

The Beatles were a pop/rock band formed at their native home of Liverpool, England in 1960. (Please) Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did it, but in my own way. If you feel so concerned about it, get yourself a proper account and do it, but watch out for the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune from Shakespeare. --andreasegde (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have changed The Beatles to 'The Beatles were...' I understand your point, but you are incorrect in the usage. British people do not use the singular for groups. (You say that it's as bad as saying 'England were a team...', but that is completely correct in British English. 'The Beatles was' grates, because it is grammatically incorrect. As the article is about a British band, please use British English. See the Wiki style guide for more information on this one - all articles linking to British groups (see: The Rolling Stones, Franz Ferdinand, Travis, etc.) use the plural for bands. Giacomodalsace (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ay oop, Lad. Twould seem tha folks baint think ee can write t'Queens English - seems thy poncing 'bout Continent as made thee a furriner or summat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't have to be a furriner tae get some things wrong in English, bograt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.25.22.11 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

THIS IS COMPLETE BOLLOCKS ABOUT 'WAS' AND 'WERE' AND I WILL PROVE MY BLEEDIN' POINT. THIS IS NOT OVER BY A LONG CHALK, THA' KNOWS...--andreasegde (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetically, yes, but...

Johnny and the Moondogs were a skiffle band, and the Silver Beetles were a rock'n'roll band - so Beatles (t/The, according to taste) were a rock derived band before their popularity made them a pop band - although Macca sang "Buseme Macho" (or whatever, I am a little out of practice on Beatles memory recall these days) the band were generally inspired by Elvis and Little Richard rather than Frankie Lane or Dean Martin so they should perhaps be regarded as a rock band first, and one who dragged "pop" music into a wider spectrum than sappy love songs with an orchestral backing. Or perhaps not?

ps. You are/were a drummer and you are from Leeds. Ever meet Andrew Eldritch? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Eldritch? Funnily enough, I did, but it was after a gig they played at the Posthof in Linz. He tried to guess which part of Leeds I came from by listening to my accent.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, popular music was the first, and then rock 'n roll, but rock (rawk, as the yanks say) was an altogether different beast. I'll look it up, to satisfy all concerned.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Popular music of the 1950's was generally big band swing either instrumental or backing crooners/variety style singers ("How Much Is That Doggy In the Window?") The Beatles were a self contained musical entity writing and singing the songs, and playing the songs both live and in the studio - this was far more in keeping with Rock'n'Roll bands and singers. It has also to be remembered that most "rock'n'roll" artists referred to themselves and their music as "rock" ("20th Flight Rock", "Don't Stop The Rock", etc.) where the longer phrase was more an invention of the dj's (Alan Freed supposedly used US black slang for sex to coin the phrase) to describe the music and the scene around it. Whatever, although Raawk became synonymous with the later Blues based improvisational music it was earlier the term for what The Beatles, and all the Beat bands, played. Pop music, being that which is popular, adjusted to incorporate these rock sounds - a bit like how it incorporated punk/new wave and electronic dance in the late 70's and 80's - so The Beatles only became "pop" because taste decided that the music they made was "popular"; i.e. The Beatles didn't change their music to accommodate pop, but rather pop changed to accommodate the music The Beatles made. Yeah, I know this sounds OR but I remember some of the pop history books of the 70's and 80's said much the same thing - similar to the way that "race music" became popularised as rock n roll because Elvis turned it into an international style. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is like the old days... :) Anyways:

"Pop music is a music genre that features a noticeable rhythmic element, melodies and hooks, a mainstream style and a conventional structure. The term "pop music" is first recorded as being used in 1926 to mean "having popular appeal" (see popular music), but since the 1950s it has been used in the sense of a musical genre, originally characterized as a lighter alternative to rock and roll."

"The sound of rock often revolves around the electric guitar or acoustic guitar, and it uses a strong back beat laid down by a rhythm section of electric bass guitar, drums, and keyboard instruments such as organ, piano, or, since the 1970s, synthesizers." When I'm 64?

There's also the thing that pop/rock coincides with pub rock, punk rock, folk rock, or any other type. Nobody would say "We play rock pop", would they? Hmmm...--andreasegde (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

In the old days you used to format your comments...

To use the quotes above - The Beatles were not playing a lighter alternative to rock and roll, they played rock and roll and they used electric and acoustic guitar, electric bass, and drums (and harmonica borrowed from more blues orientated US black music). Pop music in the fifties was swing (big band jazz), which has a similar beat to rock but is a generally less "hard edged" musical experience. "When I'm 64" is music hall, like "Norwegian Wood" is folk, and came in a later phase of The Beatles when they experimented with and created/popularised new styles. "She Loves You" and the first two albums are almost all rock music based - even the ballads were blues based rather than swing.

I think the difference is that now both pop and rock mean different things to people now than it did between 1955 and 1965, and it is likely to mean different things in 20 years time (f'instance when I grew up R'n'B is what John Mayalls Bluesbreakers played, blues based improv rock by sweaty white bands, yet now it is the progression of disco, and Motown and Philly Soul, via rap music and electronic dance). I don't know if we should try to keep the article(s) conversant with current terminology regarding genre, or to describe it as how the subjects themselves would have known it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we should follow Macca and Lennon, because they said it was "a great little rock 'n roll group".--andreasegde (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's it then, and sod all the others that say otherwise. "A great little rock 'n roll group"--andreasegde (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the amazingly hard work that you've done on your article creation of Seltaeb, and as its primary contributor, as well as all your other work you've done on The Beatles and their associated side articles, I am very pleased to present to you (I know, it's getting old), your second Original Barnstar award that you should have received last year...well, better late than never! Keep my edits intact, as I will for you, too. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright

Thank you for correcting me. There's no need to be so aggressive and argumentative. I perfectly understand. Jacob Richardson (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

What, by saying, "Look, it WAS a group, and not were a group. It's like saying England were a team that won the World Cup."  ??? More tea vicar?--andreasegde (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney GAR notification

Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Magic_Alex/GA1

Hi, I notice this is on hold for 7 days for review points to be addressed following an assessment done on 7 July. As you seem to be away at the moment, as a minor contributor I can take a look at addressing the review points in a few days if you're not back by then. PL290 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Astrid Kirchherr

I have reassessed the above article and found a few concerns which are at Talk:Astrid Kirchherr/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Was and were

Hi, my friend...I can't believe this whole thing with "was and were" is still generating talk. None of this would have happened if I had not asked you to change The Beatles' openning line. When you did that, the arguments just came pouring in... "was is correct, no, were is, but no it's not"... As you have timelessly said, and keep on saying, The Beatles "was" a band..., and The Beatles "were" John, Paul, George and Ringo. Maybe a lexicographer might come across your work and merge "was" and "were" into one word, creating a new word like "werz" or maybe "wers", I don't know. Will keep in touch. Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Astrid Kirchherr in 1964.JPG

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Astrid Kirchherr in 1964.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 14:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Sutcliffe and Kirchherr.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sutcliffe and Kirchherr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Magic Alex

No probs, keep up the good work. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"One After 090909" has been archived. Peruse at your leisure.--andreasegde (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

oh those kids

Ha - yeah, well he's a good kid, despite this lapse - and he actually called to ask me if I'd be mad... so how can I be? Said it was an incredible night. Tvoz/talk 06:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Check it out - this will also be in the print edition. As I say, he's a good kid. Tvoz/talk 07:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he write it?--andreasegde (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! He writes for Entertainment Weekly - print and online - mostly about music, but sometimes other stuff too - does reviews, interviews, features, etc. A dream job, for an eclectic music/pop culture junkie like him. Writes as easily about McCartney as he does about Jay-Z or Pete Seeger. Makes his mom and dad proud for sure. Tvoz/talk 04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just read the Pete Seeger article. Very refreshing to read something that has not one word of cynicism, and makes you truly wish you had been there. He has the writing style of his Mater, methinks. :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thanks - glad you liked it. I'll tell him! (ANd I don't take the credit, but thanks...) Tvoz/talk 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You took him/sent him to clean the weeds from the rivers, did you not? What a lovely thing. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha - that I did! Tvoz/talk 04:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your tireless edits to Beatles related articles. JayLeno175 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

References in The Beatles

Great job! I wish more of us were like you, responding so completely to tags and such. I see you're not an admin, despite three years and nearly 40,000 edits. Is there a reason for that? Are you an intemperate sort who won't suffer fools gladly, or just not interested, or what? Unschool 17:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think editing is more fun than trawling through pages looking for vandals, or deleting photos without so much as a by-your-leave. I like to inject humour whenever possible, but I reply in a sarcastic tone when people won't stop looking through the rule book, and should get out more. I was asked to be an admin years ago, but I made such a hash of it (I forgot to sign my acceptance with four tildes - ouch...) I never thought about it again. I maintain that this is my hobby, and I don't want to think of it as a job. 40,000 edits? I must be out of my bleedin' tree. :)) Thanks for the thanks, BTW.--andreasegde (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good reasons all around that I can respect. I'm sure you do get more real work done than someone bogged down with the mop. Just thought I'd ask, as you looked (and still look) like a solid bloke. Unschool 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(shakes head)</not block Unschool> LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Green with envy, Less? :)) --andreasegde (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Short citations in Paul McCartney

When entering a short citation for a book in the References section, you don't need the book title unless the same author has two (or more) books in the same year in that References section. So, for example, "Miles (1997), p. 76." is preferable over "Miles (1997), Many Years From Now, p. 76.".

Also, in the McCartney article, you've been changing "1997" for Many Years from Now to "1998", and so the article now has a mix of 1997 and 1998. The References section says 1998. Are you planning to change the others? — John Cardinal (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will change the others. As Miles has written a couple of books (Beatles Diary/Many Years From Now, and others) it's clearer to ref the right book, because having just the year is visually confusing. As an example, look at Bill Harry's published output. He should be referenced as "Harry" and then a month instead of a year. :)

BTW, all the internet references have the title of the article that is used as a reference, so one would presume that books should follow suit.

I changed the year because I got it wrong ages ago, and I couldn't face the prospect of changing them all, but I have now done it.--andreasegde (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I really wish you would reconsider adding titles to the short citations. You are going against established practice. It's not necessary except when the same author has two works published the same year and both those works are used in a single article.

There's no sense in future-proofing the citations; if some future editor adds a citation to some other work by the author from the same year, it's easy to make global changes to the existing edits. Regarding titles used in other citations, they should be omitted if the work is listed in a "References" section with the author, date, and title. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This will surprise you John, but I'm going to do exactly what you ask. No problems at all.--andreasegde (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. If you want some help, point me at an article and I'll try to make the citations there consistent, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm working through the GA articles here. I think it's good to go through them all, because some references differ from each other in format.--andreasegde (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I went to the list and started with "Strawberry Fields Forever" 'cos you seemed to be working from the top of the list and that was near the bottom. I did my usual citation cleanup work, trying to make them consistent, etc. I'll try to do at least one more article today, but I think I might step outside and enjoy some of the rays from that hot, round orb that we haven't seen much of in New England recently... — John Cardinal (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done all the GAs, the 'up for GA' reviews, and possible GAs, and anything else I could lay my hands on. I cut out the commas, full stops, and titles of books. It was quite nice to do, funnily enough.--andreasegde (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of work. Nicely done. It's easier to do than editing prose, but it never ends: keeping citations consistent on a page is like shoveling against the tide. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I now think that editing these articles is like that. After Bill Harry and 'that merchandising company' have got their GAs, the collection (for me, at least) will be complete. (I'm not banking on Ringo getting one, though...)--andreasegde (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve Smith

I thought my response about Steve Smith might be better received here than on the article's talk page. Please read this with the nice even, respectful, collaborative tone that I am trying to convey and perhaps you'll see I am not a total ass despite differing with you about something.

OK, let's try this: imagine this from my point of view. If you had seen an article edit where I removed a quote from someone that you knew, and my edit said, "This guy isn't notable 'cos I don't know who he is," I expect you'd disapprove of that edit. Ignore the other details (which article, what quote, etc.) and just focus on that. You'd probably think it wasn't right that I limited the article content based on my particular bias, where bias in this case entails which bands I like or don't like, etc.,. not something evil or fattening.

That's my main point.

Returning to the specific article, I think a lot of drummers know who Steve Smith is, but that doesn't mean his quotes have to stay in the article. If we object to his quotes because we find better ones, or because we don't need them, or because removing them makes the article better for whatever reason, I'm fine with that. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

"If you had seen an article edit where I removed a quote from someone that you knew". Hold on, right there. I would never put in a quote from someone I personally knew, and nor would I put in a quote above others from a favoured musician of mine. It's just not allowed, period. The journalists that wait on the sidelines to decry and ridicule Wikipedia just love homing in on things like Smith's comments having priority, because then they can smugly say that Wikipedia is just fancruft and not to be trusted. I refer you to the other fans of Starr's drumming, like "Orri Páll Dýrason of Sigur Rós, Danny Carey of Tool, Mike Portnoy from Dream Theater, Pedro Andreu of Heroes del Silencio, and others." It's not hard to guess that some fans slipped those in.

As I have taken a number of articles to GA, I find myself reading articles like a reviewer, because they find things wrong that I'd never even thought about, and they're getting more intense about it. On another level, you must know that most people here come and go on a regular basis, so whatever we do will be changed in a few months or so. It's "shovelling against the tide", as you so aptly put it. I'll back off from Ringo's article, but I don't think it will get a GA this time around, Smith's comments or not. BTW, let PL90 have his equilibrium, and "Other news items"... but he gets on my mammary glands like a copy editor of Hello! magazine would. --andreasegde (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean I personally knew him; we've never met. I've heard his work, seen articles about him in Modern Drummer, etc. Check him out on YouTube. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he's a fab drummer. I will check him out, as drums have always been my first girlfriend. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

File:NorthernSkyCDWikiCommons.jpg

I was just wondering if you could tell us where abouts in Leeds the images used were of. Thanks, Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Eastwood Drive, Swarcliffe Estate, Leeds 14.--andreasegde (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

Your comments on Talk:Ringo Starr are out of line. You're attacking PL290, and regardless of how you feel about his edits, that's not appropriate. — John Cardinal (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, right.--andreasegde (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mal Evans archive.

Andreasegde, no, I'm not a previously blocked editor, just a shy one. I'm sure Mal may well have had a suitcase, but it seems a little unlikely that he was carrying one (along with the rifle) at the time of his death. And as there is an element of rumour regarding the archive/suitcase, I think it would be good to clearly distinguish between the verifiable facts (which I hope, since they happenned over 30 years ago, should be covered in books) and rumour. And of course, since this is WP and not a magazine, the rumour itself should covered in a way so as not to feed it. As for the reliability of the BBC reports, it depends on the subject matter: wars, economics, etc. yes, they take care, but for more trivial matters, it appears not -- for example they refer to Mal as being The Beatles' sound recordist. Anyway I can see you're busy making a lot of updates which address most if not all of my concerns so I'll not take up any more of your time at the moment -- keep up the good work! 87.115.56.122 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have been meaning to update Evans for awhile, so I suppose you kicked me in the right direction. :)--andreasegde (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, he must have got the air rifle in America, because I'm sure he would not have been allowed to take it through customs.--andreasegde (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Author names

FYI: I notice that you specify author names like this in your full references: "|author=[[Barry Miles{{!}}Miles, Barry]]". You can use less involved syntax if you use the authorlink parameter: "|author=Miles, Barry |authorlink=Barry Miles". — John Cardinal (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I always do that (Miles, Barry) because it's much easier, although I am loathe to change every single book reference that already has it. The "Barry Miles|Miles, Barry" is one of the old-style Wiki things that should go in the bin, just like "(2005), p. 343." Too many commas and full stops/periods.--andreasegde (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that if one changes it to "Miles, Barry" the authorlink doesn't work.--andreasegde (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You specify the way you want the name to appear in the "|author=" field. You put the actual page name in the "|authorlink=" field. So, "|author=Miles, Barry |authorlink=Barry Miles" produces the equivalent of this: [[Barry Miles|Miles, Barry]]. In other words, the "|authorlink=" part doesn't appear anywhere, it's just for specifying the wiki page for a link from the author's name. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: The John Lennon References section was correct before you changed it (I reverted it), so you can use that as an example. The names appear in "last, first" order but they are links to the pages that have their names in "first last" order. Those particular entries use "|last=" and "|first=" to specify the author name, but they are just synonyms for "|author=". — John Cardinal (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is two systems. I suppose what you're suggesting is changing them all (but there aren't that many, one hopes) to "|author=Miles, Barry |authorlink=Barry Miles"? I'm not sure if it's any faster, but it is easier on the brain when adding books. Is one right in thinking that a certain Mr. Cardinal would like one to do this? It wouldn't be harder to do than all those references. RSVP... :) --andreasegde (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The mundane bit is checking whether the authors have Wiki pages or not, or... just doing it anyway (red links or not) and hope that one day they will.--andreasegde (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change all the existing cases. When I'm cleaning up cites/references, I usually change them because I think the "authorlink=" version is easier to read, but we can let sleeping dogs lie until there's some other reason to edit the article. You may have noticed that I edited the list of books on the project page to use the "authorlink=" format. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Updated--I just re-read the docs...

With {{Cite book}} and the other citation templates, things get a bit more complicated when you have co-authors.

• If the author and coauthor have a page, you do this: "|last=Miles |first=Barry |authorlink=Barry Miles |last2=Lewisohn |first2=Mark |authorlink2=Mark Lewisohn".
• If co-author does not have an article: "|last=Miles |first=Barry |authorlink=Barry Miles |last2=Badman |first2=Keith".
• The authorlink parms always use the corresponding number from the "lastn=" parameter: "|last=Babiuk |first=Andy |last2=Bacon |first2=Tony |last3=Lewisohn |first3=Mark |authorlink3=Mark Lewisohn".
• If Tony Bacon had a page, you can do this: "|last=Babiuk |first=Andy |last2=Bacon |first2=Tony |aiuthorlink2=Tony Bacon |last3=Lewisohn |first3=Mark |authorlink3=Mark Lewisohn". (By the way, there is a page for Tony Bacon, but it's not the same person.)

Hope this helps, but I suspect I am putting you to sleep with all this blather. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's interesting, but I will have to read through it a few times. I have used three or four different types of references over the years, because there were so many variations, and it would be good to have them all the same. It's a drummer's thing, I think, which is where we agree. :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)