User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 32

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

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ringo and Macca![edit]

Music journalist son made up for not taking his mum to the Citifield McCartney show.... went to Ringo's 70th birthday extravaganza at Radio City tonight with him, and it was fabulous, culminating in surprise guest Macca himself singing "Birthday", of course! What a night! Tvoz/talk 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course I can't resist posting this: http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/07/08/ringo-starr-birthday-mccartney/ That's my boy! Cheers! Tvoz/talk 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Die Freuden der Liebe.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Die Freuden der Liebe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit counts are ratings?[edit]

I didn't know that. I thought it was just a count of the number of edits I've made. I don't consider my edits a rating or something that should be improved upon. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Names_.28definite_article.29[edit]

Please review the manual of style page concerning your latest edits: Mid-sentence, the word "the" should not be capitalized in continuous prose, except when quoted or beginning a phrase in italics or bold. Capital "The" is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, The Velvet Underground... riffic (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was agreed by The Beatles Project a long time ago that it should be so.--andreasegde (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well please bring this discussion to the manual of style concerning your edits. I don't see why we should deviate from guidelines. I'd prefer if we kept this discussion on your talk page. riffic (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You sound like a teacher... :) The Beatles Project argued for a long, long time about this, because the references found in books, newspapers and the internet (on both sides of the argument) were split between the and The. Admin Kingboyk settled the situation by stating that the articles were about a band called The Beatles, and not the Beatles, because this would meaning renaming the whole project as Beatles. If you want to peruse the battle-scarred pages, you should look here: [1] It wasn't pretty, and was something nobody ever wanted to get involved in again.--andreasegde (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I have just read this on the link you provided above: "An authoritative source will determine whether the word "the" is part of a band's name." I'm not sure if you read, "Capital 'The' is optional in wikilinks, and may be preferred when listing: The Beatles, " --andreasegde (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
However, this is not listing; this is running prose. The guideline makes it clear enough. This rendering gained consensus on the Beatles talk page some months ago now. Accordingly, I have reverted the changes you made that I noticed. You may wish to check for others. PL290 (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Now I see why Riffic wasn't listed in the edit count page. If you want to start all this crap again, you'd better carry a big stick. A lot of editors went through torture for this.--andreasegde (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit count page? I'm not sure I follow.. riffic (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Give me a link to where "This gained consensus on the Beatles talk page some months ago now". --andreasegde (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I found it myself, and it's here: [2]. The consensus was most definitely heavily against you, and you were advised (quite specifically) to drop it. If you insist on disagreeing with that, you are a consensus of one. We can go through the process of reverting until an Admin is brought in, who will be given the links above. It's your move.--andreasegde (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I made this comment at PL290's talkpage. I would note that it takes two to edit war, so I will place both of you up before the 3RR board if this continues. Nothing personal, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
No probs, LessHeard vanU. The consensus shed a lot of blood, and it's all there in B&W, as you know.--andreasegde (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You've made a mistake. Not sure how you missed this. See my reply on my talk page for details, and please remain WP:CIVIL rather than referring to big sticks, torture, and shedding blood. We are discussing compliance with a style guide here, nothing more. PL290 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
You should think about what LessHeard vanU said on your page. The consensus is there, and your opinion is not compliant with that.--andreasegde (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just checking; are you going through various Beatle related articles and changing the definitive article to capital initial, per copyediting, or are you undoing a current editor (not PL290) who is edit warring? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just putting it back to what it was/should be, as per the consensus.--andreasegde (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Beatles[edit]

Hello. You recently went through the Beatles album pages and changed every instance of "the Beatles" to "The Beatles". Please read what you are changing. You changed many instances with 'Beatles' as an adjective, which should not be proceeded by a capitalised 'the' (e.g. "the Beatles album" is correct, otherwise it would have to be "The Beatles' album" but the former is preferred here). Please go back and fix your mistakes before you proceed in doing the same for all Beatles pages. Thank you. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You should read this: [3], as the consensus on The Beatles' pages was decided on a long time ago. A change to the MoS is under discussion, as it does not accurately reflect the consensus of The Beatles Project, and the fact that 'The Beatles' is a trademark.--andreasegde (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read my comment properly. I'm saying that in things like "the Beatles album" the "the" is not part of "The Beatles". Saying "the Beatles album" is grammatically the same as saying "the John Lennon album". The "the" should never be capitalised in that situation but some of your edits have done that. McLerristarr / Mclay1 17:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If you say the Beatles' albums, you are talking about the individual Beatles' solo recordings. As a group, The Beatles played in Paris, but the Beatles who went there on holiday were John and Paul. All four of of them were Beatles, but as a group (with trademark) they were The Beatles.--andreasegde (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
No, you're not getting it. I'm not saying "the Beatles' albums". In the sentence "Ticket To Ride" is the name of a song on the Beatles (no apostrophe) album Help!. 'Beatles' is being used as an adjective. It's a Beatles album. The 'the' before the adjective does not need to be capitalised, only when refering to 'The Beatles' as a collective does the 'the' have to be capitalised. McLerristarr / Mclay1 18:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
"the Beatles album" is the same as "the short album", "the rubbish album", "the John Lennon album". 'Beatles' is the adjective, not a noun. McLerristarr / Mclay1 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about, but I think you're confusing an adjective with a noun. The boy's cap, and the boys' caps, no? Two nouns together, but the apostrophe makes the difference. It's The Beatles' album, BTW.

The Beatles, as the name of a group, is a trademark.--andreasegde (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) [4] The Beatles' trademark document, which says, "signed by all four members of The Beatles, and dated November 23, 1964, in the City of London. It authorizes "The Beatles" name to be registered and used by the group in the U.S., and is attached and bound along with a title page and sworn statement from the notary public who witnessed the signing. The document reads (in part): "1. We carry on business jointly as entertainers under the group name of 'The Beatles'. " --andreasegde (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I agree that "The Beatles" with a capital T is the name of the group. But "the Beatles album" has no apostrophe; I am not writing "The Beatles' album". In "the Beatles album", "Beatles" is an adjective. If I say, "I have a Beatles album", I'm using Beatles as an adjective. "That is a song from the Beatles album Help!" and "That is a song from The Beatles' album Help!" are both correct. However, some of the edits you made changed "the Beatles album" to "The Beatles album" but did not add an apostrophe making it incorrect. McLerristarr / Mclay1 15:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the big problem, and you've spotted it; the apostrophe after their name and before a noun. It's correct in The Beatles' influence on popular culture, The Beatles' Second Album, The Beatles' break-up, and The Beatles' recording technology, but I/people have to trawl through all the other articles to correct them. In fact, I think I'll start right now. It's a dirty job, but... (I've just done The Beatles and John Lennon. There wasn't much to correct). Paul McCartney, George and Ringo done. Let It Be, Free as a Bird, A Hard Day's Night (film), A Day in the Life, The Beatles in the United States, Beatlemania in the United Kingdom, The Beatles in Hamburg, The Long and Winding Road, Hey Jude, Something, Paul McCartney's musical career, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (song), Rain (The Beatles song) - done. I have a sneaking feeling I may have missed the occasional one or two here and there. I'm surprised at how many of the articles have the apostrophe correctly placed. There's not that much to correct.

Look at these as well: [5], and [6]. --andreasegde (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should be changing it. Using 'Beatles' as an adjective is perfectly acceptable. McLerristarr / Mclay1 06:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Then this conversation is over.--andreasegde (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution (song)[edit]

I have reverted your recent edit. "Beatles" in these cases functions as an adjective, not a possessive). You have already been told this, so kindly leave this alone. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So could you give me a reference that confirms this is grammatically correct?--andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Any noun can be used as an adjective. As native English speakers, we don't need references to say our language is correct. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"we don't need references to say our language is correct." Goodness gracious, I can't believe you just wrote that, but you did. You edit Wikipedia, and you dare to write that? Shame on you for your arrogance. I am shocked to the core.--andreasegde (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I must point out that I am (andreasegde) from Leeds, Yorkshire, UK, and I suspect that Mclay1 is from one of the colonies. He has the temerity to say "our language" when he is writing to a person that was actually born on the island that gave him the language he uses. Did he do his homework? I think not. Am I angry about this? I would think so. What an arrogant arsehole he is. It makes me sick.--andreasegde (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

His Userpage is pretty much a definite Son of Albion statement. ps. I am listening to the 1963-1967 and 1967-1970 albums. That Ringo really is very good, especially considering the primitive ways of recording drums (live and onto one track plus overdubs) in those days. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the diversion. :)) I believe Ringo was/is an orchestral percussionist, which few have been able to understand or master (including myself). As for the juniors in the the ranks that constantly rankle, I suppose I should desist, but an itch has to be scratched. I mean, how can one ignore the sentence, "we don't need references"? Do you know what what makes my blood boil? Crematoriums! (Joke)--andreasegde (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We now have a "Wikipedia Styleguide Taskforce." When will the Wiki-Police arrive? It's the beginning of the end, folks.--andreasegde (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

One thing they can do is provide references that point to "Styleguide" being a word that can be found in a dictionary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Julia, Elvis and the banjo[edit]

I did a little tweaking of the 1940-57 section because some of the grammar seemed off - could you check that I didn't change the meaning inadvertently? In particular I had trouble with this original sentence:

His mother visited Mendips on a regular basis, and when he was 11-years-old he often visited her at 1 Blomfield Road, Liverpool, playing him Elvis Presley records, and teaching him to play the banjo.

The "playing him" and "teaching him" should refer to his mother, but grammatically that clause has "he" as the subject, so it's not right said that way. I changed it to:

Julia visited Mendips on a regular basis, and when he was 11-years-old he often visited her at 1 Blomfield Road, Liverpool, where she played him Elvis Presley records, and taught him to play the banjo.

- but do I have that right? I wasn't clear if you meant she played the records and taught him banjo at Mendips, or at Blomfield - or maybe that's not important and we should change it to something like

Julia visited Mendips on a regular basis, and when he was 11-years-old he often visited her at 1 Blomfield Road, Liverpool; during those visits she played him Elvis Presley records, and taught him to play the banjo.

Or, change it however you think it should be! Thanks.

(This is a bit like old times.... do you ever hear anything from our old friend VC&D? Or was that "fireman" persona actually a cover for someone else??...) Cheers Tvoz/talk 19:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is good, Tvoz. BTW, I visited Liverpool last June, and although I've been there before, it's still strange to stand outside 1 Blomfield Road.--andreasegde (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Today[edit]

A lift of the glass to you, my friend, for the one reason this is a good day. Tvoz/talk 15:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I thank thee kindly, dear.--andreasegde (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Julia's house at 1 Blomfield Road.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Julia's house at 1 Blomfield Road.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 or which could be adequately covered with text alone. 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. Fut.Perf. 15:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--andreasegde (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, it was in fact yours? Thanks for clarifying that. If you don't mind, the old local copy could then be deleted. Regards, – Fut.Perf. 15:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
No problem.--andreasegde (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Help with article[edit]

Hello I was hoping you could help me with improving an article I created? Pumkinhead001 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not being able to see which article exactly because of no link, I'll have to say no.--andreasegde (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Article[edit]

Hi, sorry the article I was needing help with is The Ghost of a Saber Tooth Tiger, thanks, Pumkinhead001 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Job![edit]

I really appreciate your help! The Ghost of a Saber Tooth Tiger looks great! have a freshly baked cookie! Pumkinhead001 (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Choco chip cookie.png

"the Beatles"redux[edit]

They are doing yet another vote in talk: The Beatles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andreasegde. Thank-you for writing to my talk page. Yes, I already read that same argument you made there on the Beatles' talk page; no need to follow me home and state it again. You and I have each voted, let's just wait quietly and see what consensus says. Yes indeed, I am a Beatles fan; even my children came to love their music on their own without my prompting. Have a good day. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The/the Beatles[edit]

Yes folks, it's here again. Please look at this link [7] and leave your vote. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Responded. Thanks for letting me know. SilkTork *YES! 12:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Request[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disruption at The Beatles article and talkpage and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom case regarding The Beatles[edit]

Hi Andreasegde, this is just a friendly notification to inform you that the Arbitration Commitee has declined to hear the case regarding The Beatles to which you were a party. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

the latest[edit]

So..... my kid interviewed Yoko the other day! He's off camera, but she's on. He's now an editor at Rolling Stone, having a ball. Do you know the word "kvell"? And see my talk for Linzer torte plans.... Tvoz/talk 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

He has the life! Tvoz/talk 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The/the[edit]

You're welcome, and I really do appreciate your acknowledgement. I must be very honest: From what I had seen of your intelligent but moderately aggressive comments, I was surprised at your level-headed, fair-minded solution. And then I saw it really worked. Have a good one. (Discloser: I have never edited The Beatles article; I occasionally edit the George Harrison article.) —Prhartcom (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If anything can stop this destructive Big T problem, I'm there. I thank you for your intelligence, and I mean it. :) --andreasegde (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
It's funny no one else has commented. I believe everyone (including us) are tired of it. It would be great if one of the other editors active in the discussion could agree that that it is actually over. But perhaps silence is nearly the same as agreement. You know, a statement may need to be added to the talk page, summarizing this problem and stating what we have proven to be its only solution. If editors notice it, it should help going forward. Cheers, —Prhartcom (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you sure do, my friend, you sure do! Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

A Cellarful of Noise[edit]

Look here for Epstein's use of the lower-case "t" in his book. — GabeMc (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

GabeMc, I am jumping in on Andreasegde's page. As you may have noticed, I am in agreement with you about the lowercase 't', and Andreasegde is not. What you may not have noticed is that both of us have finally realized that the discussion is lame and will never be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone, therefore it is pointless to continue bringing up reasons to go in either direction. It would be great if you could rise above the lame discussion also, give up arguing for a side (even if your side might be the right one—but that doesn't matter as we've seen), and instead consider the unique (not perfect, but workable) solution Andreasegde has proposed. Then we can get on with our Wikipedia lives.  ;-) —Prhartcom (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Couldn't have said it better myself. :) I'm going through a Mimi Smith GA review, and Julia Lennon is up for one soon.--andreasegde (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you actually taking the position that the group's manager, at the height of their popularity, was mistaken when using a lower-case "t" in his book? — GabeMc (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
He didn't write it. Try reading some history.--andreasegde (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mimi's done![edit]

Hi A, I just passed Mimi's article. Golly, I feel like I know her; how nice it is that Lennon had such a strong "domineering" woman who loved and cared for him. At any rate, congratulations for all your hard work. If you wanted to take it further, to FA, I strongly suggest that you take it to peer review to tighten up and improve the prose even more. Christine (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the GA, C. :) --andreasegde (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Just realised that your comment, "I feel like I know her", is one of the best compliments anybody can get. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Julia Lennon GAN[edit]

Just to let you know that I've completed the GA review of Julia Lennon and placed it on hold pending resolution to a couple of issues in which I noticed. Please see Talk:Julia Lennon/GA2 or alternatively go to Talk:Julia Lennon for details. Thank you, –MuZemike 02:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Heather Mills[edit]

No. it's not "quite clear". The current text says she was standing with someone, then crossed the road, as though the standing has something to do with it. And now you've changed it so that she was run over after she crossed the road (which puts her on the pavement again!). Was she in the road when hit or what? Britmax (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kensington Road is fairly long, so it needed clarification.--andreasegde (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did you delete " the third in a convoy of three"? Wasn't that important enough? I think it was, because she should have seen the first two go by.--andreasegde (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Even better: "Mills and Mincione were at the corner of De Vere Gardens and Kensington Road, London, but while crossing Kensington Road"... Better, no? Mine's a pint.--andreasegde (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry that was a harsher tone than I thought, you can tell it was the last thing I did last night.
Well, I have to admit it's getting better (it's getting better all the time). "while crossing Kensington Road, at the corner of De Vere Gardens" might also work. I left out the three motorcycles as I didn't feel it was important enough and to avoid the kind of sniping against her that adds up and I don't feel is a thing an encyclopedia should be doing. But that's just me. The pint's behind the bar across the road (!). Britmax (talk) 07:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

References versus Citations[edit]

Per your comment, "It's called "References" because directly underneath it is "reflist", which refers to references, not citations. Traffic cops give out citations", please see WP:CITE: "A citation is a line of text that uniquely identifies a source.", " ... requires inline citations for any material challenged ...", "How to write citations: Each article should use the same citation method throughout. If an article already has citations ... ". — GabeMc (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, bugger off. You make me itch.--andreasegde (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, love it, love it! You seem to be back, albeit with only cameo appearances. I thought your solution regarding The Beatles main article was inspired BTW - it seems to be working, although has it been officially adopted yet? I’ll bugger-off for now!--Patthedog (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down[edit]

Allow me to make my copyedits, and I'll explain them fully in Talk. There's no need for you to edit war. DocKino (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Read the consensus discussion, and add your opinion, but do NOT go against what we are discussing. If you don't add your opinion, you will be reverted. The lone cowboy only rides off into the sunset by himself.--andreasegde (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep writing to me when you should be participating in the article's Talk thread? I have said repeatedly that I would explain the basis for my edits there once I was done editing in the article. I flagged that I was done a while ago and was proceeding to Talk, an advisory that, for some reason, you have chosen to ignore. Let us confine further discussion to the appropriate venue so everyone can participate. DocKino (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you say, "I would explain the basis for my edits there once I was done"? Are you trying to make me laugh? That's like telling a partner that after you've had sex, you would explain the reason for doing it. Go on, tell me another. The comedic possibilities are endless. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Time to talk[edit]

First off, with this reversion, you went right up against or over the 3RR line. Whenever you do that, whenever you're tempted to do that, you should recognize that you're not handling the situation well and either make another choice or just back off for a while.

Now, in your edit summary, you fairly screamed "PLEASE read the talk page, and I say PLEASE." I did, and I saw that you had zero response to the clear, straightforward explanations Doc provided for his edits. I can also see that his edits retained the vast majority of changes you made to reduce the number of times "The Beatles" occurs in the article and thus plainly respected consensus. I'm not sure why you got so heated up—perhaps there is bad blood between you in the past—but it seems to me that Doc's edits today were very precise, while you not only refused to engage in discussion today, your edits (a) put back clear errors or bad phrasing into the article and (b) evidenced a belief that all of your eliminations of the full band name were somehow "locked in."

Once a few hours have passed, or however long it takes to cool off, I suggest you read through (and think through) Doc's explanation, respond there on the article's Talk page, and see what others have to say, as well. Again, taking the long view, the general alteration you made to the article's style remains in place and what is going on now is an entirely normal process of refinement and copyediting for flow and readability. It's evident that you both want the best for the article, so there's no reason you shouldn't be able to figure out how to work together.—DCGeist (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You have obviously not read this [8], so you do not fully grasp the situation.--andreasegde (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"Obviously"? Hmm. Some response. The fact is that I read that thread. I read it very carefully. And I observed that neither you nor anyone else took the thought and care to respond to the following observation by Piriczki:

While this and many other articles would benefit from a better use of pronouns, as a solution to the question of capitalization it is misguided. This method only hides the problem, and the lack of a solution, from view. It does not solve the problem. There will no doubt be instances where the use of "the Beatles" in mid-sentence will be appropriate or even unavoidable. I haven't read through the most recent version of the article but already I noticed an awkward sentence in the Song Catalogue section where it is unclear which antecedent the pronoun refers to.

Obviously, as you are wont to say, you disregarded all the opinions voiced in discussion that did not concur precisely with yours and decided to ram your opinion home without discretion or subtlety. Nice if you're involved in warfare; not so nice if you're involved in Wikipedia.
Thanks to your crude, ungracious response, I grasp the "situation" real well now and will proceed accordingly.—DCGeist (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Say hello to the Doc for me. --andreasegde (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: LMAO[edit]

Thank you. I'm glad you thought that what I did was funny, because I didn't think it was. Then yet again, people say I'm funny when I don't mean to be. :) Classicalfan2 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Greetings, Andreasegde! Please allow me to restate my respect I have for you, as you are an active editor of The Beatles article and I am merely watching the proceedings; thank-you for the care you take to document this great musical group. I am also happy that you and I are on good footing—I was impressed with the way you were able to put aside your views of the "Big T problem" and make a compromise to do what is best for the article. I said as much to you, and you replied likewise with your thanks and your respect of me. It is pleasing when editors are able to put aside their personal feelings and work together with mutual respect. Therefore I ask, again with the greatest possible respect, why you feel it necessary to raise the tone of a discussion? As you and I have no doubt observed many times, discussions proceed best when the tone is kept low. Anyway, I hope you take my advice as I offer it with friendship. Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Very nicely put, Prhartcom, as always. :) I'm just frustrated that DocKino doesn't feel the need to take part in the discussion. I invited him, but he obviously decided against it. He's rampaging through the article without feeling the need to understand the very delicate nature of what is being proposed (as we both know). It seems very high-handed.
This is why I held off closing the discussion, because I thought this kind of thing might come up, as it has. One can only hope the discussion is not diverted by this. I think I've said enough up to now, so I'll take a back seat and wait for future developments. It's always better if it's a combined effort, after all. Thanks for the message.--andreasegde (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome, and you're right, I am wondering why that editor hasn't put forth a definite vote on the subject. Ah well; he has been invited, so as you said it's time to wait. As you noticed, however, this editor did make a solid attempt to improve the article and document that attempt in the Recent Edits section. From my perspective, I was reading his comments, nodding to myself appreciatively, then I got to your response. A frown crept over my face, and I wondered why any editor felt raising the tone was necessary. Couldn't the tone be kept low, I thought? Why must anyone crank it up? Of course, the first editor's defenses were now raised and the discussion proceeded to go downhill.
You know, I personally have decided to be "Mr. Neutral Attitude" when I write here—but I can tell you I was not always that way (I am hot-blooded by nature). It can be a "fun" challenge keeping it low, but a challenge I have realized can be met. That's why I feel comfortable suggesting you also could decide to always keep the tone low, as I have personally seen how it can help. Anyway, it's great to be on good terms with you, Andreasegde, THANKS again for pretty much solving the "The/the" issue, and I wish you well, as always. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an example of "a scholar and a gentleman". Nice.--andreasegde (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. No hidden agenda - intelligent and courteous. I think most of us are like that, but there are some (that you can count on one finger) who are intent on getting in their retaliation first. However, the sun is shining here, I’ve got a beer on the go, and I would like to wish you good health and a long life -Cheers!--Patthedog (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll raise a tin of 'Zipfer' (Austrian beer) to you right now, as I'm working on Cynthia's article. Having a cig and a tin of the cold stuff works wonders. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Heather[edit]

Hi, thanks for the thanks! Just thought that you should also know that she has sold her Manhattan apartment (http://manhattan.blockshopper.com/news/story/1000119784-Heather_Mills_sells_West_Village_condo) so the section on 'residence' is now wrong. I am giving you this as you seem to be the editor who is in charge of the page and has done such a good job to make it so fair. Respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.54.52 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You should put it in the article. :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Done!

Cynthia Lennon GAN[edit]

Let me know when you're finished with changes/expansions and I'll resume looking at it ... otherwise I'll just be seeing a shifting target ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've finished.--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)