User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Enough 2 re. GA 3 Now 4 SPLHCB 5 Not Me 6 Your GA nomination of The Casbah Coffee Club 7 Congrats/Refs 8 "John Lennon" article - "Death" paragraph 9 He will go away, as many times as it takes 10 Dit...Dit... 11 Dude, remember to sign in, willya? 12 GAr for "Rain"? 13 Only one thing to say this time of year... 14 Happy Xmas 15 Christmas 16 Reviews 17 Voormann image 18 Photos 19 Heller House 20 Daniel Dunglas Home 21 Your Beatles (and other) articles 22 To Pervy von Pervy-lesko 23 Hello fellow Beatles fan 24 Palz 25 On a different note... 26 Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria 27 To whom it may concern

[edit] Enough

I've had it mate, I've got to get up in 6 hours, and I'm paggered, knackered and I need summat to nosh. --andreasegde (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re. GA

Thanks for the kind note - it makes it all a bit more worthwhile, mate. By the way, are you OK? Wouldn't want to see the end of you - we need more Beatles GAs :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine. I was only joking with that message, but I did have to get up and I was hungry. (A good chilli con carne will do it every time, yum, yum... :) --andreasegde (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now

"Now's the time to say goodnight, goodnight, sleep tight..." I'm off to the pub. :) See you tomorrow. --andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright for some eh? Grumble, Grumble, Piss & Moan, Boo Hoo! Alchohlics Unanimious 23:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a bit nervous, because this is my first meeting, but my name is andreasegde, and I am an alko-frolic. I like drinking a few pints, having a good laugh, and then cementing my relationship with me bird by delving into her undergarments and caressing her fruits (I think they call them melons, but I'm not sure...) She says I do it too ofen, but the actress never complained to the bishop, by Jove. Anyway, my story is (sounds of sobbing) that I fell into the wicked ways of enjoying a pint of that poison they call Bitter, and I even went so far as enjoying Lager when I couldn't get any (Bitter, I mean, and I am bitter about it, I'll tell you that fer nothing...) :) --andreasegde (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Pool lost against Chel-sick tonight, and Crouch was sent off for a vicious tackle (as if you didn't know). Bugger. --andreasegde (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! "All day he faced the barren waste without a taste of Bitter, Smooth John Smith's Bitter." Feckin tell me about it I've had 3 Chelski Crazed Females rubbin it in by TXT all night! Bennutcase must go! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Crouch must put a bit of weight on, like Mick Jones, so he can really get stuck in - a bit like John Charles: "He was never cautioned or sent off during his entire career, due to his philosophy of never kicking or intentionally hurting opposing players." What a load of bollards! Crouch is so thin that anything he does can be seen, and not be attributed to his weight and the forces of gravity (which referees can forgive....) --andreasegde (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPLHCB

I'll try to make some edits to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band but getting articles to GA is not my strength. Time-wise, I hit WP in short bursts, and getting an article to GA takes some sustained effort (as you know so well). Personality-wise, I'm predisposed to reject criticism from people with little involvement, like rnadom editors who rate articles. Out of respect for your request, I will do what I can, and I think the article will improve.

I may get a little free time over the holidays, and if so, I'll try to bring it home. I appreciate your asking me, despite having some misgivings about the assignment! I think in real life we might like each other more than is evident in the pseudo-world of WP. — John Cardinal (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you should do it, John. Your edit ideas for the Mal things were really good (and you did them) so I think you should "bust your cherry" by doing it. Take it home to GA. I really hope you do, and then you can add it to this. It's a wonderful feeling, believe me. (I can help anytime you want, if you want). To be really honest, it would be nice to have two editors that can take an article through the mill of a GA and then achieve it, which would be you and me... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Me

Andreas, You know me better then that. I wouldn't vandalize ANY pages. The problem here is with the editors. I still want to know why nobody especially Arcayne, didn't email Spindel about the picture. Ahh... Good to be back for a minute. And Arc, watch your language.Innocentvictim (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would love to change things. Arcayne is pig-headed. He won't cut his antics with me. I could be as nice as the next fella, he won't allow it. He tries to push peoples' buttons, he tried with Hoptcop2 and it didn't work. Anyway, I don't expect this name to be around to long as I will get reported. Let's get JL the GA. Innocentvictim (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your GA nomination of The Casbah Coffee Club

The article The Casbah Coffee Club you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:The Casbah Coffee Club for things needed to be addressed. Davnel03 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have left a note on the talk page. --andreasegde (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Um. It's not compulsary to have references in the lead, but I personally feel that the Coffee Club article could possibly have a stab at FA status if you opted to go that way. I would prefer to have references in the lead. Cheers, Davnel03 11:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And I've also just noticed that not one reference is formatted properly. You need to format the web references used the Cite web template. Cheers, Davnel03 11:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The book references need to be formatted using the cite book template. Good luck - my the looks of things, you've done a great job on the article so far! Davnel03 11:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do (actually doing it now! :) --andreasegde (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a few things to do with the referencing that need doing. As with it being a GA (soon!), you need to have every detail from the source possible. I've made an example diff HERE. Right before, you simple had:

• The URL (http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/07/best.beatles/index.html)
• The title (The Casbah’s re-opening on CNN)
• The accessdate (2007-12-20)

However, the CNN source provides details of:

• When it was written
• Who wrote it
• The exact title name (the name provided before of the title in the article was not the same name in the CNN article, you must have the same title - you cannot change it.

I've gone and added it for the CNN source as an example, but you need to do this for every ref. For some refs, the data may not be avaiable, and you can just therefore leave it. I apologise if I did not make this clearer earlier, but you really need every detail about the source possible. Cheers, Davnel03 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The article The Casbah Coffee Club you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:The Casbah Coffee Club for eventual comments about the article. Well done! You may add the template on the left to your userpage! Davnel03 13:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats/Refs

First, congratulations on The Casbah Coffee Club.

I know you have worked hard in that article and others to supply great refs. If you will allow me to make a suggestion... For web-based sources, I would not set the "publisher=" field to the domain name or some other portion of the URL. For example, the publisher for an article on bbcnews.co.uk should be "BBC News" and not "bbcnews.co.uk". Clearly, it's not always easy to determine the publisher's name on web pages. Also, in some cases the publisher's name is the same as the domain name: "Amazon.com" would be the proper publisher when citing a review from their site.

In general, reliable web sources usually have an organization name and they display that name prominently on the site. IMO, that's the name that should be used for "publisher=". — John Cardinal (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is weird, because I was seriously thinking of asking you to help me with that about 2 hours ago! I went through the refs three times, and I was getting seriously pi*#ed off with it... :)) --andreasegde (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn! I never noticed that. Oops.... anyway, I really think that could have a stab at FA in the future. Davnel03 16:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good advice, except I would question whether Amazon should ever be cited. Great site, but not a reliable source.

Also, when citing say news.bbc.co.uk you can actually wikilink it (BBC News) to make it look even more credible (where the source has a Wikipedia article) :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all new to me, but I'm doing my best. Boy, haven't the GA reviews come a long way? I think it's a good thing, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Andreasegde, I'll take a stab at the references on The Casbah Coffee Club if you want... When I noticed it today, I didn't want to make a bunch of changes that didn't seem super-important right after a GA decision.

Regarding whether or not Amazon.com is a reliable source, I agree that caution is well-advised: I doubt they have the same zeal for accuracy as companies in the mainstream publishing biz. On the other hand, some of their reviews are written by reliable sources such as Billy Altman, who has also written for the Village Voice and other magazines. Mostly, though, Amazon.com was the only example that came to mind! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

John, please do whatever you like, as you are Mr. References (respect is due). I had to jump through hoops today, and my mind is still settling down. We are all good at different things, but mine is not adding publisher= first= last= what did you drink last night= please do this three times before it's right=... :)) I think I'm gonna dream about this tonight, which is a sign of Wiki-stress, is it not? :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Although, having said that, I will be happy about another of (The) Beatles articles getting a GA. :) --andreasegde (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I modified the refs for The Casbah Club. I modified the publisher names to use actual names rather than urls in all the cases where I could find the name. I also adjusted the citations to books that are in the reference list. In that case, a good format is:

Authorsurname (year), pN.

In the case of multiple authors, it's customary to use only the first/main author's surname although style guides differ on that. In any case, the title is omitted unless the same author wrote multiple books in the same year, and both books are referenced.

In the end, it's just details, but it looks better when it's consistent and the proper format rewards people who bothered to remember this from school! :) John Cardinal (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't forgotten my other assignment. I need a little "block time" over the holiday and I'll make a stab at it then. John Cardinal (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "John Lennon" article - "Death" paragraph

Hello,

I write to you as you are unofficial "guardian" of John Lennon article.

Today I decided to revert one recent "deletionist" and "abbreviating" edit by Kevin. I want to know your opionion on that. Besides analysing content of my "restoration" edit you may also like to see what I wrote to Kevin at his discussion page at User_talk:Kevin77v#John Lennon. Thanks for your attention. I appreciate your John Lennon edits. --Bluewind (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Bluewind, and I thank you for your kind thoughts. --andreasegde (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He will go away, as many times as it takes

Thanks, Andreasegde. That's great of you to say. The reason I won't tolerate SixString1965 - or any of his puppets to play in the article is that he lost that privilege by lying and being deceptive. A pure cup of water with even a drop of crap in it is still unfit to drink. If SixString wants to earn back the write to contribute to Wikipedia, then he has to come clean, not sock and throw himself on the mercy of whatever admin is willing to offer him a - I was about to say second chance, but he has socked so many times that this is something like the 17th or 18th chance he will be asking for. If they let him back, he needs to toe the line and essentially put up with everyone knowing what he was, and working damn hard to improve himself.

If he's willing to even trythat, he might get another chance. But sockpuppeting? Not only no, but hell no. He does it the right way or not at all. I don't mind splitting up my edits to keep him blocked and away from editors who actually make a conscious effort to follow the rules. I like you, but you are wrong to even consider accepting his trespassing, or accepting that he's just goingt o break the rules until we get bored with it. I am saying unequivocally: I will never, ever get too tied to have him blocked, so long as he thinks that sneaking in is the only way available to him. If he's willing to try to come back the right way and walk the hard road, then I might even be willing to help him. Otherwise, we can simply find out who has more staying power. The smart money would be on me, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"The smart money would be on me, though", made me laugh a lot, and I thank you. :))

I think Sixstring is a new case, because he will not give up, and he is really interested (maybe too interested, of course) in John Lennon, as a lot of other people are. I'm really not happy about this in-fighting, and I wish that it would stop, because it makes me feel ill (I'm really serious about this). There are more important things in life... --andreasegde (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixstring isn't a new case. There are literally hundreds of sockpuppeteers in the English Wikipedia. all of them pathetic little people who don't know how to ask for forgiveness, or not seeking it. You are a good person, so obviously its going to bother you when your good and trusting nature gets taken advantage of by someone who seems to be helping but isn't. I will tone down my criticisms of Six in Lennon, but under no circumstances will I ever allow him to contribute to the article. People like you and Hotcop2 and others who play by the rules get to put the article together. You upload pictures and perform edits and don't do that stuff that would get you blocked or banned. You deserve to have the article reflect the work you do, and not that coming from someone who cannot or will not follow the rules that the rest of us abide by. His continued puppetry tries to cheapen your efforts because he misguidedly believes that his illicit presence shouldn't get in the way of his contributing to the article. Yet every time,he contributes, we have to go back through the article and remove everything that he contributed (we don't use the work of sock-puppets, as it is a reward). This is why we cannot allow him to act unimpeded. since everything he contributes has to be removed, everything he does is a waste of time and a distraction form the rest of us doing what we enjoy.

Don't let him get you down, Andreasgede. He might not give up, but he will always be found out, and everything he contributes will be removed. That's got to get old quick.

Merry Christmas, dude (or dudette). :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Y'know andreas, He right about that water thing. When I used to go to my auntie's house, I would get a glass of water to drink. Now I knew the damn glass was clean but when I would fill it right from the tap, There would be these white things floating in it. I wondered it for years. Finally, you get to that age when you start realizing things and that was one of the moments that I would figure that the white stuff was just air bubbles. Did I mention the water tasted like sh*t anyway? It really did. It must have been the 100 year old pipes. Makemewish (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dit...Dit...

Leeds 1 Bristol Rubber's 0 yor in 3rd place, 1 point from top!! owsaboutthatten? Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvellous, although there was talk of being in first place for New Year's Eve... --andreasegde (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you could be, away to Hartlepool 26th, away to Swansea 29th. Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What about Crouch being sent off? He said the Nigerian was faking it, but admitted he was frustrated. --andreasegde (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh he caught him alright, but he made a right meal of it - he's lucky that he wasn't on the recieving end of the Anfied Iron! Overpaid Perfumed Ponces! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nottm Forest, played 20 games
• Swansea, played 19 games
• Leeds, played 21 games

Bugger.... --andreasegde (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I told yer who's doin it - they need to raise some more money to put on a 33-1 winner! Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dude, remember to sign in, willya?

Nuff said. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's because it looks as though I've signed in, and then when I want to edit a talk page (somewhere down at the bottom) I can't see that for some reason I'm not signed in. It's very confusing. --andreasegde (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe check that little box that says, 'remember me'. Anyway, I am in flight. happy Christmas. :)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAr for "Rain"?

I know my assignment was SPLHCB, but I got caught up in some corrections to "Rain" and I think I brought it within range of GA. If you can find a moment, will you take a look and let me know what you think? I am not asking for a detailed review, just a quick scan if it's in the ballpark or not. (If you want to do a detailed review, feel free, of course!)

I don't think the lead section is done properly; it does summarize the article but includes citations, which I think are supposed to be removed in favor of citations on the details in the article body. I did include at least one assertion (primary composer) which isn't in the body; didn't have a nice place to put it!

If it is close, then I need to know how to trigger the GA review... I know I could find a page with instructions, but if you could point me in the right direction, that would be great.

If you don't have time, no problem. This can wait. Thanks. John Cardinal (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There you go again, John - I was just thinking about you (don't get me wrong on this, I was only thinking about those lovely references for Julia Baird which I have just started.) I will certainly look at Rain, and will give whatever help I can. I have more time now, as I have decided to back off John Lennon, as it's not going well at all. This is also funny - you getting into bringing an article to GA, and me getting all interested in references. D'ya wanna swap jobs? :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only one thing to say this time of year...

Haddy Grimble! John Cardinal (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Xmas

from Hotcop2 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas

As my better-half is in Spain with her family, I am having an interesting time on the Julia Baird page. Do editors get a barnstar for working over Christmas? :) --andreasegde (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews

I think there is often times some confusion on whether a low importance article is appropriately broad. Dennis Franklin includes all phases of his life. However, he had no notable accomplishments outside of football (to my knowledge). Thus, I think complaining about breadth is inappropriate. H2O may have a great reputation, I am just not convinced his assessment that there is notable stuff out there for his King World experience is a valid one. He was a mid-level manager. There is not much more to say. If the real complaint is that the guy does not have enough notable things to say overall that might be an argument that could be made, but this seems to say that apart from his life after football and non-football high school stuff the article is O.K. I might fail the article as just not good enough for GA based on overall content brevity. I also might pass it as sufficiently describing his notability and giving us a clear picture of almost his entire life. I don't think the failure was valid.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voormann image

That you missed linking the article in the rationale was not a reason I tagged the article though. That I can fix myself. I just think it fails WP:NFCC#1. Garion96 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

To all editors: Please do not leave me any more messages about photos that are not acceptable. If you want to delete them, then just do it. I'm fine with that, even though there are thousands of photos in articles that fail the same criteria, but are not in the infobox. It's the tip of the iceberg. --andreasegde (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heller House

Thanks with the editing of Heller House. Did you just happen upon the article and start editing or did you see it at WP:CHIDISCUSS? You may be aware it is on a seven day WP:GAC hold that started on 12/26. You may wan to note on the talk page any progress you have made on the hold checklist.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually found it after reading about the GA problems you are having. It's a small world...:) --andreasegde (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, good work to both of you. The article now passes GA criteria and has such been listed. Thanks for all of your effort. It's great that you took the initiative to effectively clean up the atricle--I especially admire your contributions to the "signifigance" and "architecture" sections. It looks like you spent some time on this. Again, good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lovely stuff. --andreasegde (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You may want to post this somewhere

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll keep it here; it looks lovely underneath the Christmas tree. :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Dunglas Home

I have started work on this article because I bought the book today (I do like biographies) but it has nothing to do with me being a hippy (I'm not but I do like trees and dolphins) or the fact that Crestville thinks I have a girl's name (I do not, because it is the patron saint of Scotland's name). :)) --andreasegde (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Beatles (and other) articles

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work writing interesting, well-referenced articles. --kingboyk (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank thee kindly, Sir. It's only a hobby, but I do enjoy it. --andreasegde (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, only a hobby. It would be much nicer if we got paid for it, wouldn't it? --kingboyk (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes please. It's also irritating that some web pages steal/borrow a whole article that one has spent a lot of time on. I know everyone can edit, but isn't there some kind of copyright that Wiki could use? --andreasegde (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

They have to give the authors credit. If they don't you can email and complain (will it work? well...) Nothing you can do to stop your articles being reused however - you're supposed to consider that one of the joys of working here :) See Wikipedia:Copyrights. --kingboyk (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thought that might be the case. Ho-hum... --andreasegde (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We won't pinch any of your articles - honest. AMMAGOGGLE.CON 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah-hah, the man with the large axe and breathing apparatus! It's not that they steal it so much, it's the wierd feeling of reading something about a person (after googling for information) that makes one slowly realise that one has bleedin' written it oneself, as one might say to one. Harrumphh, one might complain gruffly, kippers with knobs on and I'll go t'foot of our stairs... :) --Sir Ronald Cut-and-Paste (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's spooky our kid, then they have the feckin cheek to put all over the net that Wiki pinches stuff from their sites! Happy New year Btw:) Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Pervy von Pervy-lesko

All one has to do is [click on this link], type in andreasegde and click on Search, which will give you the information you desire. It's also a good way for me to know what I have been doing as well, which is nice. :) --andreasegde (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Is Pervy looking in? How are the kids, and have you lost that little cold-influenced voice that sounds really nice? :) --andreasegde (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

She´s here :) and the voice is really nice because the cold is coming back.... (This was unsigned by Pervy) ...

[edit] Hello fellow Beatles fan

It's great to know there's others like me out there. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I'll consider it. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. The more the merrier.... :) --andreasegde (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Palz

File an SPP, and make sure. If you need help, let me know (though its pretty standard fare). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing this out of spite, but as a way of helping someone overcome their reluctance to go through normal channels. I would like to see the person in question back, but only if it's in the right way. Co-operation is always better in my book, and it would be nice for him to know that. --andreasegde (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What's an SPP? (Or does it stand for "mind your own business"? :) ) --kingboyk (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea, because it took me ages to find out what IMO and IMHO meant. --andreasegde (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) Gah! Actually it stands for 'I'm a daft prick' - I meant SSP. We are concerned that one or more of the users (see my talk page for details) are yet another series of socks of a longtime puppeteer. I've had my suspicions about at least two additional ones, but no one wants to accuse an innocent newbie of being a sock. Therefore, I recommended SSP, to make sure. This user is very frustrating because if he just did things the right way, he might be able to get reinstated eventually. the way he's going about it, every comment he makes, every addition he makes and every image he adds has to be removed once he's discovered - one step forward, two steps back. He thinks he's helping the article, and no amount of persuasion can convince him otherwise. He's steadily moving into the territory where no one will be willing to give him another chance. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. If the person in question reads this, he should think about agreeing with it as well. --andreasegde (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Don't worry about the typo - I wouldn't have known what SSP is either! ;)

Thoughts? You could try checkuser if he's a banned user. Or, hope this little exchange is enough to make him modify his behaviour and then everyone can forget any suspicions they might have had :) --kingboyk (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I never thought I would have to do this to the venerable Kingboyk, but can you watch your colons? (Ouch!) --andreasegde (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even worse if you were to manipulate his colon usage. Eww. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching them for the last 5 minutes but they still haven't moved... --kingboyk (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I shall pretend that I have no knowledge of how one could do that, but I shall ask Boy George, or George Michael, whom I have heard know about that sort of malarkey. --andreasegde (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't expect him to, Kingboyk. He might think we are unaware of him, which is why the SSP should be filed by, say, tomorrow, if the person doesn't voluntarily remove their contributions to Wikipedia under the false account. I think that would account for someone being on a different sleep schedule and time to consider how they are on a slippery slope to permanent ban. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind my colons, please watch your indents folks! :P --kingboyk (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What are indents? --andreasegde (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Colons (:) provide indenting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugger, why are the names always changed? Present Continuous = Present Progressive - it never stops... :) --andreasegde (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indenting: "To set (the first line of a paragraph, for example) in from the margin." Ah-hah, I know that! So that's what it's called... --andreasegde (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On a different note...

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria

Are you familiar with this? Maybe you already have a group of articles which are mostly FAs and GAs which would be eligible or could get there? e.g. how many featured articles do you have about the McCartney family? Something to think about and perhaps aim for, anyway. --kingboyk (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Back in the Lion's den? Whoah, silver... I think it's that 'not notable enough' stuff again. I've almost got Lennon's family in the bag, with Cynthia, Julia, Alfred, Mimi, and half-sister Baird, but I couldn't see two of them (for the topic minimum of three) getting an FA. (Lennon's article is so emotionally charged that it would be worth a gold star just to get it to GA).

Same with Pete Best, his mum and the Casbah club. Same again with Astrid and Sutcliffe (Astrid scraped through the GA, as there's not that much/known to write about her.)

McCartney only has himself and his mum and dad - his brother Mike could possibly get a GA, but his half-sister is a hopeless case at the moment, and Linda didn't do enough. (I know that sounds silly, but it's true - photos, kid, Macca, playing the wrong chords, more kids, veggie lifestyle...)

Beatles assistants and others? Epstein and Martin could possibly be FAs (I think a lot of FA reviewers are a bit snobby, so they'd accept them, but not Evans and Aspinall in any way, shape or form...)

There you go, Kingboyk. It's a pity, but I would rather walk over hot coals than put something up when one knows it's gonna get a good kicking and be thrown out for not being notable enough. :) --andreasegde (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm happy with this at the moment. --andreasegde (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To whom it may concern

A message to a regal entity and a funny word about the thing with two eyes, a nose and a mouth, and something you read. Nice photo of you (---) on the boat, you lucky devil... I thank you for the contact. This means we're "friends" now, and it's very welcome, because you are the first one on that particular page :) --andreasegde (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)