User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA reassessment of Cynthia Lennon[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Cynthia Lennon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the reassessments please take them to WP:GAR. We don't rely on just one editor to respond to reassessments, all major contributors and projects are notified. And we certainly don't have time to investigate the holiday patterns of editors. Cheers, Jezhotwells (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"all major contributors and projects are notified", but NOT the one that took it to GA? Which ones did you notify? You didn't contact anyone at all, did you?--andreasegde (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm - the first post under this heading is the standard notice I use on GARs. It was posted on 25 August 2009. I generally post on the talk pages of editors with more than ten non minor edits. You were the only person in that category who was not an IP or a bot. I also posted at the Beatles project[1] and at WikiProject Living people,[2] a division of WP Bio that seemed most appropriate. So your accusation above is without basis and I would ask you to withdraw it. As to Bill Harry, I don't usually inform editors that I have reviewed the article - it is presumed that editors who nominate at GAN are keeping an eye on the article in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"it is presumed that editors"... Well, I should also presume that you presume a lot. Goodbye.--andreasegde (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Lennon and Chapman.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lennon and Chapman.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. Damiens.rf 13:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll request from July[edit]

I just noticed that you'd accidentally added a comment to my user page instead of my user talk page back in July, so I never got to participate in it. Just thought I'd give you a heads up for next time. Gordon P. Hemsley 21:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells (talk)[edit]

This editor is on my case. For whatever reason, I don't know, but it would be nice to know why.--andreasegde (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not on your case - I'm just reviewing GANs and GARs. You can go to WP:GAR if you feel the reviews were incorrect. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and you can go to that place that's hot.--andreasegde (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A mutual friend[edit]

Are you sure? I don't see any evidence of edits since 10 August. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He sneaks in and out, but he loves causing trouble. You were totally right.--andreasegde (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Seltaeb[edit]

I did explain it on the talk page, but I suppose a bit more explanation wouldn't hurt! The key issue here is that "accurate" figures - tempting though they look - can be unintentionally misleading.

For a start... well, taking the lead figure as an example, saying "$695,965,103.60" implies there's a very accurate calculation of the losses, whereas the original "$100m" figure was itself a round number, an estimate someone came up with, and we certainly didn't make it any more precise by converting it!

As to the actual calculation, this is another issue. Retail-price calculations are great for a loaf of bread or the electricity bill - we can say confidently that a packet of cigarettes "cost the equivalent of three dollars today" - but they become inaccurate quite fast when we start looking at large values, because the relative amount of wealth floating around changes so dramatically. (As an example, this essay has a few examples showing that for a single high-value sum from the 1930s, a construction project, it's possible to come up with a variety of defensible numbers which vary by a factor of twelve for "what it's worth today".)

I think what this comes down to is that the inflation-adjustment numbers of numbers which are already round estimates are going to be at best vaguely accurate, rather than precise to several significant figures - remember, we're adjusting these large figures using the consumer-price index, which is itself not very precise for large sums. We're misleading the reader to suggest otherwise, and we certainly don't want to do that intentionally! Shimgray | talk | 11:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay.--andreasegde (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles at FAC[edit]

FYI, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive2; is it ready? Should you be a co-nom, or should it be withdrawn in the event you weren't consulted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Long Long Long[edit]

Hello old chap. It’s looking a little bleak over here at the moment, like you’re moving out. Everything O.K.? My excuse is I’ve had swine flu, which is a bit of a pig, I can tell you. Well done on the Seltaeb GA pass BTW. It was mainly your work I know, but I'm happy to bask in your reflected glory, if that’s alright (If you feel a little extra tug on your coat tails, that’s just me). Cheers.--Patthedog (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You helped as much with Seltaeb as I did, Patthedog, and I thank you - especially for the great sense of humour. "Superfluous!" still makes me laugh. :) How did you get away with "Excrement!!"? I have no idea. :)
I'm not doing much here these days, because I think the project has a good list (48) of GA articles. I can't think of many more to go in that would interest me, because I like working on biographical articles, although Northern Songs might be interesting. I'll pop in from time to time (cries of "Shiite Muslim, I thought the old git was packing his bags..." :)) --andreasegde (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Music barnstar.png The Music Barnstar
You have added value, wisdom and humour with all your contributions, and I have learnt from the master.

Patthedog (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


Maybe you two ought to get a room? <g> Congrats to both of you on Seltaeb. I may have been seen as a fly in the ointment on that, but really, I wasn't working against you, and I'm glad The Beatles project has another GA article. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, John, come in. It’s a little sparse in here as you can see, but please sit yourself down. Mind you don’t bang your head on that barn star. Andreasegde is still sleeping off last night I think. Thank you for your congratulations. For meaningful progress there has to be yin and yang, and I believe that is what occurs between all of us sometimes. Perhaps we should get a room for three? That would be interesting!--Patthedog (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with my learned colleague.--andreasegde (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Cor, crikey, I've just read the Barnstar dedication. Uhh-err missus, I don't know where to hide the blushes. Ta very much, Patthedog. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thompson Twins[edit]

I noticed that you have contributed a few times to this article, and wondered if you could help me. Recently I have been trying to clean it up, particularly with the addition of citiations. I am almost finished, but can not seem to find anything to verify most of the 'facts' in the 'Early days' section. Any suggestions ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would comment that Andrew was the drummer for the early Thompson Twins, so while the WP ethos of verifiability is perhaps being stretched to invisibility it is very likely that the detail is correct (as far as memory allows!) However, I suggest we should also allow Mr Egde to comment about the time he used to associate with musicians... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This is interesting, because as I was there, does it still count as OR? I have a magazine somewhere that was published in Austria aeons ago, where I was interviewed about my past musical misdemeanours. I'll dig it out. --andreasegde (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The basis of Wikipedia is verifiability (he says to the man who has balanced books on his knees while citing facts regarding the worlds most famous recording group) so there is an argument that if something is verifiable (i.e. if it is true) then it can be included. The counter of course is to prove that it is verifiable by citing a source... However, untruths that are verifiable (that can be sourced) can also be included.
As regards the Austrian magazine interview, I think that would fall under secondary sources - but unless you or the magazine were sued or retracted the details then it may be allowable. Derek may have an informed opinion on this (although, being rather old, it may be a little slow in coming). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon[edit]

"I did count them" means that I counted the references, before placing the template on the page. At first glance, the article appears to be very well-sourced. But around fifty percent of all references are not merely from the same person, but from a single source written by that person. What's surprising to me is that you are consciously aware of these numbers, and believe that it is evidence of adequate balance. I'm aware that there aren't many other sources for this stuff, and I sympathize. But, look, my concern is of copyright infringement.

The article is a play-by-play of Lennon's book, replete with consecutively summarizing the content of individual pages, as well as using multiple photographs, which don't meet the criteria—specifically, the de minimis requirement, and they certainly fail the lower resolution requirement—given on their respective pages. Essentially, the article serves to displace Lennon's book; there is hardly any reason for the layperson's interest after having read the article. For more on this form of copyright infringement, see Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, which concerned an even smaller infraction than the Lennon article.

Honestly, I don't expect to make any headway with you on this, as just a few minutes glancing at the article history, and aimlessly perusing its discussion page and then your own reveals that you are quite hostile to anything that you perceive as criticism, however impersonal and constructive it may be, along with a dubious position on plagiarism, as can be found at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 38#Copyright Infringement. And I'm well aware that you are quite prolific as an editor, and passionate about these articles, with all the accoutrements of a "good" editor, but such is Wikipedia. Your position can be summed up as something like "It's not plagiarism if you don't use the exact words," which is easily counter to any introductory talk one would experience as, say, even a high school freshman in the United States.

Do note that I wouldn't dare claim that this is one such instance of an impersonal criticism, and in fact, I myself would likely be quite riled up were it directed at me. This is merely the state of things. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have absolutely no personal stake in the article, only the integrity of our claim that all of this can be distributed under a free content license. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I knew this was coming, especially after reading other comments on your page.
  1. "You are quite hostile to anything that you perceive as criticism, however impersonal and constructive it may be". What gives you the right to make such a very personal evaluation of my good self? Do we like playing the Wikipedia psychiatrist in our spare time? Your arrogance is shocking, and you should refrain from personally attacking (for that is what it is) other editors in this manner. You have only been here since January 2008, but talk about "A few years back" on your own page, which makes me wonder if you were previously blocked because of your attitude, which is autocratic and insulting.
  2. Plagiarism: "The unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." I take it you are saying that I closely imitated the language and thoughts of Cynthia Lennon? This is laughable, because her book is full of the very personal viewpoints of a woman who was born in Liverpool, and was once married to John Lennon. I fail on both counts. A "play-by-play" of Lennon's book? It's an autobiography of her life, for St. Pete's sake, as is the Wikipedia article. Lives are lived that way, but maybe you would disagree.
  3. By citing, "It's not plagiarism if you don't use the exact words," you are putting literally thousands and thousands of articles on the chopping block. Why bother at all if one can buy the book? By your token Wikipedia would look like Amazon.com.
  4. You know (because of your years of experience) that Cynthia Lennon's article hasn't got a hope in Hell of passing a GA review with that tag on it. I suppose the only thing to do is to take this up with an admin, who will give his balanced viewpoint. Que sera, sera...--andreasegde (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Doesn't everyone have the right to make these evaluations? I welcome critiques from yourself and other editors. Only serious critics need apply.
And I do hope you found my talk page straightforward to read, but without delving into the subjects of discussion, it offers only a superficial view. (And a limited one in your case, it seems: you should be comforted to know that before the appearance of your first edit from this account, Wikipedia used to have considerably fewer restrictions on anonymous editors, and the no-registration/no-hassle aspect was encouraged and one of its most highly touted features. As such, it was the preferred mode of editing for many users, including myself. But all of this is incredibly immaterial.)
I'm at a loss for why, even after finding such a fitting definition of plagiarism, you cannot see it here. You say you "fail on both counts." Which ones exactly? Being a woman from Liverpool, and having once been married to John Lennon? If I did think such things, I wouldn't have brought the issue up at all, as your being Cynthia Lennon would have necessarily disqualified this as being a case of plagiarism. And since you mention it: a biography the article should be; an autobiography it cannot, as you've already helpfully pointed out that you are not Cynthia Lennon.
Also, your comment about Amazon.com is a bit silly. I suppose that I would be characterized as an inclusionist; that's certainly not what I'm pushing for. As I said though, much of the Lennon article—around half, as you've counted yourself—consists of consecutive, page-by-page summary of the book. That's not good either.
And really, you should also be happy to know that I have no personal stake specific to the article, as I've already said. I don't give two shits about the Good Article certification, or even that whole process at all, so I'm certainly not trying to subvert it. Although, even in the absence of said certification, would you have difficulty finding satisfaction with having written an article of substantial quality?
The following is true: I want the Cynthia Lennon article to be really great. But as it stands, almost the entire account and its structure are cribbed from Lennon's book. The latter should not be done to satisfy the former. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confusing a whole range of issues, and are actually striking out in the direction of your own personal version of Wikipedia. This is an Encyclopedia that everyone can contribute to (as you obviously know), which is why Cynthia's article is not mine alone, and never was/will be.
All I can say is that I await the judgement of an admin. If it is deemed that you are right, I will take Cynthia Lennon from the (to be reviewed) GA list.--andreasegde (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to comment upon the above posts, in my capacity as an admin. In doing so, I am not commenting upon the Cynthia Lennon article or any particular edits or actions - since that is the function of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (and doesn't need an admin, anyhoo). Since Andreasegde is well known to me, as evidenced by my posting in the section immediately above, I did ask whether he was happy for me to comment regarding application of policy and guidelines by both parties, which he agreed to.
  • Re C. A. Russell's comments: I see no reference or deference to Wikipedia policy or guideline, and especially Wikipedia:Assume good faith, in your comments. You appear to have posted with the assumption that your comments would be dismissed or responded to inappropriately - whatever your expectations, you should have approached the issue in a neutral manner and given an indication that you expected a good faith response. I feel your reading of Andreasegde's talkpage history to be somewhat biased, in that you have obviously missed all those comments which allude to the co-operation and collegiate efforts by the editor in improving very many articles (including GA and FA nominations) but instead referred only to the disputes that also appeared. I will return to the copyright/plagiarism comments specifically later, but would now comment only upon the failure to refer to any WP policy or guideline in your post; you have simply placed your interpretation of how the article might fall foul of your interpretation of these concepts. Per AGF those concerns should be addressed, but it should not be the task of the respondee to determine what WP policy or guideline is not being adhered to.
  • Re Andreasegde's responses: Again, a lack of WP:AGF and neutral tone. Even if another party does not apply the required standards of civility and collegiate discourse, the responses should. Again, similarly, there are no or little references to WP policy in the reply. As soon as a dispute is personalised then there is little scope for there to be a discussion and thus a resolution. Abrasive styles of commentary do not help the encyclopedia.
  • Re possible copyright violations, but especially allegations of plagiarism: I will deal with the latter point first - this is complete rubbish. I am no lawyer, and I am not even much of an content contributor these days, but I am familiar enough with the concept of plagiarism to dismiss the accusation. Plagiarism is the use of other peoples material and passing it of as one's own. By the complaint that much of the information is cited to one source, then it is clear that nothing is being presented as the original work (which is contrary to WP idealogy anyway) of the editor Andreasegde. You can quote any legal precept you like, as soon as someone denotes they are quoting or summarising from a third party source (and link to same!) then it is not plagiarism. As for copyright violation, I will comment that the last GA reviewer showed no major concern with the article in this respect. Again, since this is an encyclopedia which uses cited third party references and sources, and disallows original research, there is going to be a considerable similarity between what a source says and what the article says; that is pretty much the intention and purpose of the project. Limited use of direct quotation is permissible, especially in regard to what people are recorded as saying, and otherwise the source is going to dictate the manner in which it is reported - otherwise would be to misrepresent the source. If there are concerns regarding possible copyright violation, then there are processes by which it can be determined if they are legitimate. It is disappointing that neither party appear to be inclined to avail themselves of them.
  • To conclude; I find the specifics of C. A. Russell's concerns to be either invalid or disproportionate. I consider the editor to be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia ethos, and of its policies and guidelines. I feel that their initial and subsequent posts to this page were lacking in good faith and collegiate tone. I feel that Andreasegde also failed to apply good faith, or conduct themselves in a collegiate manner - and that in being a long term contributor, with a good knowledge of the environment, that this is an unfortunately recurring aspect of their interactions when faced with commentary that might be regarded as ill considered or incorrect. Whether or not the template should be removed from the article, and whether concerns do require review and discussion by third parties or the two editors is a matter for them to decide upon - but hopefully with a great deal more good faith and reference to policy and guideline than has been the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

C. A. Russell's response to LessHeard vanU's comments[edit]

You may be interested in my response to LessHeard vanU's comments on my talk page. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have read them. --andreasegde (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You might wanna take a look at this place I found[edit]

The Beatles Wiki --Hailey 22:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

These pages.... Are they advertising Gillette's products endorsed by Tiger?--andreasegde (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think you might have a lot of good information to contribute to them!--Hailey 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah - once I've had Cynthia promoted (again) to GA status, I will join the 40,000 that have left, but I will keep one eye open for erroneous changes. Wikipedia is like building a house with no doors, and on sand.--andreasegde (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I copied the whole Cynthia page and put it on The Beatles Wiki. If Wikipedia doesn't want it, they can have it.--andreasegde (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki[edit]

Wikipedia is eating itself from the inside out. The "GA Sweeps" only result in people leaving because the inner circle keep raising the bar. This site is becoming a cult. The idea is dying, folks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to "Hi"[edit]

For a quicker response, you could have linked to User:Ravpapa or given some sort of indicator. I'm not following the Cynthia Lennon article, and given the timing, I thought you were wishing me a happy Hanukkah. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

In attempting to recify some of the issues that just lost Cat Stevens it's GA-ranking, I noticed your work on Northern Songs, and was wondering if you had any information about Ardmore & Beechwood you might have, if any. It's the first songwriting publisher Cat Stevens signed with in the mid-1960s. Please answer on my talk page, thanks! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

All I learned is on the Northern Songs page. Sympathy with your loss of the Cat Stevens GA ranking, but it's to be expected from this crumbling empire of self-elected GA reviewing despots.--andreasegde (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
NO kidding! Not sure which is worse-- all these "WP patrollers" that would rather see if we "dot every 'I' and cross every 'T', particulary when there are multitudes of articles that are entirely unsourced, but about very notable people or topics-- or, the ones who find fault with B-ranked or either GA or featured articles, when they could just roll up their own shirtsleeves and fix the problems they find! However, to be honest, I knew that Cat Stevens would need more work, although the complaint is about stuff he did in the 1960s- the reviewer felt there wasn't enough information, (where to LOOK?) and he thought it had too many song clips- for a career lasting 50 years or so, and the songs are necessary to show his change in musical style, from his "pop star" days, to after his bout with tuberculosis and change to folk rock, to his Muslim-inspired songs and back again. I thought we had been fairly representative of him and frugal with the music he recorded to show such changes. The questions about Natalie Maines, other than a couple dead links, seems too eager to find fault. By the way, do you know of anyone you can recommend who would help me? I need somebody who can show/teach me how to put together a good album page, or do discography work? I never really knew where to find sources, and ratings.. I need to be able to add to the Rory Gallagher piece, it had been pretty much ignored since 2005, but the discography for dead musicians (and sources for text) aren't very common without paying a newspaper for past articles! Not to mention the box sets and compliation albums released posthumously! I sure could use some help just to get the idea. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Where are you looking for info? Which newspapers? Just trying to get an idea. BTW, I met Rory, as a friend of mine, Alex Burak, was his sound engineer for a time. Rory was a really quiet, nice man.--andreasegde (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Form B (ea) t1 es not completed[edit]

I regret to advise you that your lisence to edit The Rutles has long expired, and you will need to find someone who has heard of the above piece of card - let alone posses one - and colour in the pictures of the "mopheads" and return it to a Cayman Island address, which can be found upon a Ro(11)(ing) Stone located in Strawberry Fields. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How did you know I was hiding in the Cayman's?---andreasegde (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)