User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 4

Your GA nomination of Mimi Smith

The article Mimi Smith you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Mimi Smith for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Wikiwoohoo 15:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dead chuffed too kidda! Told yer it was good - I may not be much of a writer like, but I'm a good reader! Well Done! Bongo O'Starkers

Congrats. Very impressed, but I think you've developed beyond the stage of needing me to make a stub for you to build on. Do it yer bloody self! Good man, celebrate. Neddie Seagoon

Barnstar

I was looking through my old communcations with you today - whatever happened to the barnstar I gave you for winning my "Spot the Les Dennis" competition? So, what, if Kingboy or Less Heard or a scouser give you a Barnstar or other awards that's great but you'r too good for an accolade from moi? As such, you have been granted this award (as a side note, which heartless bastard took that picture, and did they make the child cry on purpose?)--Crestville 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Crying Child of Shame
		I award andreasegde the crying child of shame for your hard work in making me feel inferior to a fireman (only kidding Vera, I actually love you). You made the child cry, Andrew. The blame rests upon your bonce.--Crestville 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, this is a joke - I'm bored. Just so you don't think I'm actually offended)

Somehow I lost all the early stuff, including your Barnstar. Crying child? Give it a good slap and put it in the airing cupboard in total darkness for an hour—that'll shut the little monster up. Replace tears with fear, that's what I say.... Your friendly child councillor 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You are not wrong there - that IS funny!! Jimmy Tarbuck's Belly

The Beatles Trivia

They're at it again - trying to delete it. See the discussion page. The Beatles Trivia "delete" page. andreasegde 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say no more squire! Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had put my vote in for renaming the article Miscellanae some five hours before you told me. However, if the last attempt resulted in a keep, then I am going back there and smack some bottys. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was too late to vote - it's staying! That page JUST. WON'T. DIE! So far as I can remeber your one of the few contributers I have never had a tiff with. I even had an almost-tiff with Vera due to a bit of tension. You have many barnstars, all of them deserved. Cheers for finding Les, you can keep the crying child though. For posterity.--Crestville 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC) (just checked - it was a simple misunderstanding with no real element of argument involved. So maybe we've got that to come, you SWINE!)[reply]

I thought the vote was over--Crestville 10:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone makes mistakes, including the person who was referring to you as "workshy" when in fact answering a comment by Fireman "Ouch" who is/was off work for some other reason. He did it on my talkpage, too! LessHeard vanU 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't make a mistake. I was referring to Cresty...andreasegde 13:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it was VC&D that thought the vote was closed - and who was immediately above your comment saying it was still open.... LessHeard vanU 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should learn how to say, "maybe you're right 'LessHeard vanU'" in my replies. It would save a lot of confusion as to whom we are conversing with. Agatha Christie's sweaty socks 13:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't wise to humour me, though. On EZboard I write under the title of "LessVain notI" (true!), as my arrogance extends to being able to recognise some of my failings (big grin)! LessHip vanU 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dashing off

Just a bit of advice on style: try to lighten up on the use of dashes. Some useful guidelines appear here. The gist is "The Dash is generally confined to cases where there is a sudden break from the general run of the passage. Of all the punctuation marks it is the most misused." Raymond Arritt 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I was hassled on the Macca review page about them, so I went overboard. Consider myself slapped on my wrist, by myself. (Ouch) andreasegde 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next?

I gave Julia Lennon a bit of smartening up. What's the next GA candidate? Raymond Arritt 04:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about Freddie Lennon, because there's a lot there already, and it just needs cleaning and references.

I also thought about "Jim and Mary McCartney" because they don't have anything at all at the moment. andreasegde 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of articles

I added a "status board" to WP:TB. In my opinion it's important to keep The Beatles plus the individual articles on JPG&R at GA status or better. I find it disturbing that John, George and Ringo are only B-class. How about we get those up to GA (or better!) before moving on? Raymond Arritt 03:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started Freddie Lennon, and it's going to be finished in two days or so. I think The Beatles is almost up to GA now - it just needs a bit more work. I will start on it as soon as Freddie goes for GA. George and Ringo? I haven't looked at them at all. Are they in a serious mess? andreasegde 05:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George and Ringo are just in need of TLC. Generally there are a few of us on anti-vandal patrol and general cleanup duties but nobody giving either a big push. Once John and Paul settle down then perhaps these can be looked at? LessHeard vanU 21:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Freddie is up for GA, I'll 'do' The Beatles, and then John. My problem is stopping myself putting too much trivia in—I can't resist it... andreasegde 06:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity body parts

Please stop with that particular line of pseudonym. I'm very sleepy and they're increasingly making me feel ill. I implore you! Something nice

I accept your apology about your mistaken edits in my wonderful article: "How to wet your pants by reading editors comments". I will refrain from attacking your talk page with "Celebrity body parts" in future. Honest... andreasegde 11:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I was on the night shift! Drivin' me friggin' bonkers being at home with three crazed Chelsea mad females! Have a decko at these mad cockney gets! [1] Should be back in a couple of weeks now! Oh well quick bath now I think, an a rub down with The Sporting Life! See yer later Pal, Free Nelson Mandela with every 10 Gallons

Reply to your message. xP

Ohh, it's fine! I was out of the loop that day anyway. xD Sorry if I came off as rude. Take care. Dieter Weber 23:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't—just confused, which is understandable on Beatles' pages... :)

Freddie Lennon

Little Freddie Lennon has been put for a GAR. Would someone look at it for stupid mistakes, and give it a wipe with a damp cloth? andreasegde 09:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Little Fred, an he looks OK speshly without his leg irons (lol) 20/20 Vision Fine pair of shoulders show em off

LOL! No, not bin on the ale! I like Speshly me baby girls say it, even write it at times- always makes me laugh, their Mum tells em off and that makes me laugh even more! You certainly know the West End, all famous people do! And no, I don't wear ear plugs! What me deaf?

Now that my friend is a very astute observation, your'e spot on they do don't they? Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lennon

Thanks for letting me know. I'll have a look at it soon for you. Wikiwoohoo 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyming slang

I stand well and truly corrected. My old bankers chest kill

But do I win 5 Euros? andreasegde 16:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Drake

Thank you very much for the edits you made today, and for your kind remarks. I run the article through a spell checker every so often; I just cannot spell, I'm beginning to accept that now ;) Thank God computers are here to do it for me. + Ceoil 20:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Flip!

God what the hell's going on there? Don't seem possible that! What's that tosser Wise up to? Makes yer wonder! BTW it has to be Bruton Place cos it's the last left that he hangs. Norman Hunter's got the hump

User:164.58.159.198 is vandalising Macca, can you watch him, have to log out for now, CheersVera, Chuck & Dave 20:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Before submitting articles for GAC or FAC, why don't you submit them for peer review? That's what most do to highlight any minor problems, and it helps a lot. You should use it. LuciferMorgan 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Argument Sketch

Found myself on your user page, and linked to the above (ah, memories). My 16 year old son asked me what I was chuckling at! Needless to say, he laughed his socks off. I feel it's only polite to thank you. He now wants to know if the Pythons best stuff is on DVD. Can you recommend?--Patthedog 10:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one—the generation gap can always be bridged with a spot of daft humour. DVDs? There are lots out there; no idea which one to recommend. Try these: Monty Python, Four Yorkshiremenand The argument sketch. andreasegde 11:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's it! These are good. Cheers. --Patthedog 11:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Manilow GA Removal

What is your explanation for prematurely removing Barry Manilow from the GA nomination? The current feedback on 1/14/07 was for the FIRST NOMINATION and has since been implemented and resubmitted for a SECOND NOMINATION on 1/25/07. You left no feedback on the Talk page so I am presuming that you mistakenly thought that the 1/14/07 feedback was new. In the future, do not remove other nominations without first grading them yourself to move up your own two nominations placed. It is nasty. 151.204.213.250

Because it was failed for GA. I found this on the talk page:

Failed GA nom On several fronts, this article is good - it is accurate, broad in coverage, relatively NPOV (although there is a lot of puffy language - "Manilow got the century off to a good start" etc - not a lot, but glowing language is not the best.) etc. etc - - - - Good luck!-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that good enough? andreasegde 18:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not good enough. It is relevant to review how far the article has improved since last looked over by reading somebody else's feedback. Not to reuse somebody else's feedback as your own for an article you probably never read -- to move up your own articles. I reput it back up for consideration since you were in err in taking it down in the first place and actually left none of your own about the current content of the article. 151.204.213.250 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I will be really honest about this: I thought that it had failed its GA nom, and the reviewing editor had forgotten to take it off the GA nom page. I sent a message to the editor in question to ask him, but got no reply. If I took it off mistakenly, then I truly, and deeply, apologise. It was not my intention to move my articles up—not in any way, shape, or form. (I think Barry is nice article, BTW.)

I apologise again. I shall now thrash myself with a big stick. Good luck with the GA nom. andreasegde 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was an honest mistake, ok. It's fixed. Good luck with your articles as well and please don't hurt yourself. 151.204.213.250 18:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was honest. I'll try not to hurt myself too much.... :) andreasegde 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry there was confusion here. As indicated, I failed the article on 1/14, apparently it has been put back up as a nominee a second time. No harm done. Also, why did you title your post on my talk page "accusation"? -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful feedback on the Barry Manilow page, as well as contacting the rater from before. I appreciate all your help with combining the paragraphs or sentences from the same year. With Manilow it's a bit tough with the prose since his life is his career with his albums and television specials being a nice part of it. Thanks again. 151.204.213.250 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re the upcoming Beatles Newsletter.

As part of my editorial duties in reporting all that I know that has happened in the WikiFab world I have mentioned the Macca FA nom&fail. I think you should look at what I have written there in case you feel you have been misrepresented. I don't mind dealing with any flak in publishing my take of the matter, but as you are involved I thought I would check with someone who may get collateral damage. I would rather you made any comments at the 'letters talkpage than remove stuff, however.

ps. I have changed my vote at GAR (since obviously nobody read past the bolded print...) LessHeard vanU 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why are you not a subscriber to same? You're missing out on some great bon mots. Or is it we that have messed up? ++Lar: t/c 03:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read it on other users' pages. andreasegde 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you SAY. but we have no way of KNOWING, do we? ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, Crestville, Vera, and others were mentioned as having presented silly awards to each other (I clicked on the links). It also takes up too much space on my talk page. andreasegde 14:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on retaing the GA status of the flagship article. LuciferMorgan 05:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The McCartneys little boy "Jimmy"

If you feel that drastic chopping and splitting is a way to go then I would strongly suggest you mention it at the talkpage. Otherwise you will either be in danger of violating the three revert rule as people try to repair the "damage" you are causing, or you will spend more time explaining yourself than editing. Once a policy is agreed you can direct any queries to the talkpage and carry on. LessHeard vanU 21:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I would surely do that. Then again—as you so rightly said—it would be foolish to restrict a 'flagship' article to the rules that FA articles are governed by. "Between a rock and a hard place", as they say. andreasegde 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild One theory (Again!)

Alright Our Kid? I see this "biker gang" (beetles) nonsense is in the Fabs article again. I can't remember seeing The Anthology Documentary, have you seen it? and who is it that claims it? As you well know, that by the time any member had seen the film, (Including in Hamburg) they were alrealdy named "The Beatles" Bon Jovi missus how tickled hi ham

Oh, an interesting one. Macca says that they got it from the film, but I have been reliably informed that the film wasn't released in the UK until the 60s. The chase is on, Watson... andreasegde 13:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so, "Paul Ochs" protest/civil rights singer strikes again! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect DEFFO! It was banned in the UK for 14rs! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I heard. Where did you get that info? It would be useful to add it to 'External links' to fob the buggers off. andreasegde 13:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Out [2] Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers la! Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LuciferMorgan has bailed out of Wikipedia

I have left a message on his talkpage thanking him for his help on Beatles related stuff. I am hoping a few messages of thanks might make him reconsider his decision. Yup, this is a hint! LessHeard vanU 22:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved my vote of thanks out of the original section, as the arguments that lead to LM leaving started cropping up there. I have voiced my intense displeasure at comments directed at my attempting to keep the section clear of such prattle, too. LessHeard vanU 18:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved it to our section! Er eh, wot a bunch of friggin' nob'eds!!!! Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]