User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] THIS IS THE INSULT PAGE

[edit] FAs?

I note with interest your verbal assault,

“ In your face and sarcastic", huh? When you slack-arsed moaning fishwives have brought any article at all from Start/B-class to GA, then you can comment. I didn't "try" to move articles up the scale, I bleeding well did it. Until then you can take your "small t" and shove it as far up your rectum as is humanely possible. If you did as much writing in articles as you do on talk pages, every article about The Beatles would be at least a GA, but they're not, are they? You're just a bunch of [expletive deleted], and you can all [expletive deleted] off. That good enough for you? ”

My reply is, if you are so good and valuable, why can't you get an article to FA after spending weeks on it? Oh, wait, I know why: you aren't as good as you think you are. I am not in the habit of putting anything in my rectum, that's the "out door." If you need some help with basic anatomy or other useful information, please feel to ask. Butr first, go have a donut Homer. John Cardinal 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness gracious, stop with the petty personal insults! Have you nothing better to do with your time? Can't you see he's left? He was a really good contributer and he's left because of STUPID little squabbles like this over the letter "T". Pack it in and grow up.--Crestville 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Crestville, but it's possible that Mr. Cardinal has never heard of a GA, doesn't know how to get one, and dreams about them... andreasegde 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, andreasegde, let me make this offer. I will cease any further veiled or direct insults if you agree to do the same. Further, if you are even remotely interested, I'll attempt to discuss with you in a civil manner some accommodation where we both feel that working on Beatle articles is a worthwhile pursuit again. If you tell me to sod off, I won't reply, at least to the first missile. This is a direct and sincere olive branch and if you are in a place where you can accept it, that would be good. John Cardinal 04:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The sooner that someone points out that this isn't a fucking competition - a point which Andrea used to make on his userpage - the better. Work together, no back biteing or oneupmanship (unless your just arguing with Americans for a laugh - that's how I justify my extra curricular activity) and no - NO - massive arguments over the word "the" (though it is spelt with a capital)--Crestville 13:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olive branches are always welcome

I accept your offer of an olive branch, John Cardinal, and it is much appreciated. I do have some points to make about this whole fiasco that I feel are almost insurmountable.

  • So many editors wrote that they agreed with the uppercase article, but could not condone my actions in trying to implement it into policy. I even put forward a compromise, as you know. I agree my attempt was highly unusual, but I was attempting to break the stranglehold of "a smaller group of people who decide policy." I was further told that debating is useless, votes are not allowed, and, in effect, go home and stop trying to change it. It means that there is a hierarchy in Wikipedia who must be obeyed. I find that method of control very unpleasant.
  • I stopped working on Brian Epstein just after putting it up for GA, and waited to see if it would pass (the reviewer said it was a possible FA, by the way). The point to this being that it failed because NOBODY worked on the minor points pointed out by the reviewer. This is after I had left two posts on the Beatles project page pointing out that Epstein was up for a GA. To see it fail after I had put so much work into it was devastating, to say the least, and especially after the comments about this being "a nifty little project". Where is everybody when you need them? Nowhere...
  • I am not being arrogant here at all, but - to my knowledge - I am the only person that has put any articles up for GA or FA in the last six months. (The six articles I put forward are now GA). Good Articles are the strength of Wikpedia, and something to which we all should strive for, but not in this Beatles project. Other projects are queuing up to get an article passed, but not here. I believe this nothing short of a scandal, especially when I am accused of "grabbing power." (The McCartney article failed FA because of its size, BTW, and not much else.)
  • After all this talk of how great the project is, I can only assume that some people are kidding themselves. There you go... andreasegde 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Q: How many years has John Lennon been a B-class article? Look it up, and you will be amazed. If it took that long to write an encyclopedia, the editors would have been fired long ago... andreasegde 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely, Drew, if you can explain your complaints so articulately and succinctly as this so that I can understand, appreciate and sympathise with them in such a way then it should be entirely possible for us to take these points on board and work towards a solution, dear heart. As such, there is no need for you to leave, and as a result Vera need not leave either. I know I don't contribute to The Beatles project as much as I should but if it helps I will make Brian Epstine my personal cause (once my dissertation is done) and we'll get it not only GA, but FA and maybe even try publish a fucking biography. Your better than this hen, lets do a 2 man job on this cunt, but don't just skulk away like a big old clown. C'MON!!--Crestville 22:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I am being stubborn about it, I admit, but I'm being stubborn about things that would better Wikpedia. I really believe in working together (and I mean really working together, and not just talking about it as you know) but a lot of people don't get it - maybe because there are so many arguments here that knee-jerk responses are the norm. If there is no project agreement about the The (I'm looking for pigs that can fly and Hell freezing over at the moment :) then I can not go on. I tried to put forward a compromise, but was kicked in the knackers for my troubles.
It's just not fun, and you know how much I like to laugh my tits off.... :) It's all sad stuff, but when people say they do not like what's on TV, my response is to say, "Turn the 'effing thing off then!" which is what I have done. Such is life. I will drop in to say hello to you and Vera now and then, because I love you both (no, not in that way, you dirty young man) but I can not accept that I must write the Beatles. It goes against the grain as they say, and every other bit that is connected to my nervous system. I wonder what editors would say if they were forced to write new York, los Angeles, north Dakota, the mull of Kintyre, stoke-on-Trent, leamington Spa, or new Mexico? Ho-hum... andreasegde 18:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just move onto another project? Preferable a band who doesn't use "the" in their title. Genesis perhaps? Actually, scratch that last thought.--Crestville 23:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, you young Oasis fan you, I actually worked in the next studio (Virgin "Townhouse studio") to Mr. Collins in the 80s, and played his drums when he was taking a long lunch break. I also liked early Genesis, Yes, and lots of other now-hated bands when I was a young spraffer, BTW. I will never apologise for that, because young people do that sort of thing.
I am thinking of working on Eric Sykes (because he was a genius) and Muhammad Ali (because he was also a genius with his gloves as well as his mind). I bought both books when I was in London with an Austrian steelworkers English class, so I have the page number CITATIONS. Will that do, you loveable young rogue, you? (P.S. Me Austrian bird knows exactly who Crestville and Vera Chuck and Dave are. She's probably bored to death by me talking about you both, but she's a good egg, as Vera says... :) P.S. She even knows who Kingboyk is... andreasegde 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely pleased

I am very pleased to see this response. I think I understand better now than before, and while that may not lead to a solution, it's significant progress IMO. I did not understand that your frustration about article assessments was ... what? another brick in the wall? you described it above, and so it isn't important for me to regurgitate it, but I think I get it. I have similar frustrations ... While I am not focused on the high-priority articles of the 4 fabs or their close associates, for about a month solid I tried to fix egregious cases where song articles were filled with fancruft, had no citations, and/or were just plain wrong. After spending from 4 to 6 hours getting a song article from awful to acceptable (IMO), it would take somewhere between 24 seconds and 24 hours before someone added fancruft, POV, OR, etc. (Those weren't the only edits; some good editors would improve phrasing, add cited material, or improve the articles in some other ways, but that was the exception, not the rule.) Shoveling against the tide! For you, the focus was a relatively small number of long, high-priority articles where you worked for days if not longer, whereas for me, it was a larger number of articles where each is a lot smaller and (usually) doesn't warrant that kind of effort. I haven't been at this as long as you, and so my frustration was/is probably a lot less, but it gives me a place to stand (so to speak) where I can understand your reaction.

With regard to the the/The thing, we may never agree. The key is, how do we make it OK that we don't agree? I think it infuriated some people who are in favor of "The" when some people—including me—said the outcome wasn't that important. I certainly didn't mean to anger people with that comment, and I didn't mean to trivialize it or belittle the people who were passionate about it. Maybe the people who don't have a strong opinion about the topic should take an active role in the debate because they aren't as passionate as other participants. I don't think I have any good answers or proposals here. My personal response to such situations is usually to ask questions, rhetorical or otherwise, to try and discover which issues need to be decided first. A question in this case might be, "Should the style guides of major publications be a factor in this decision?" Questions will stimulate answers and debate, but that's not really the point for me. The point is to stimulate more questions, and hopefully discover a good starting point, an "OK, here's something we all agree on" place. I have seen people facilitate such discussions and they have considerable skill in asking NPOV questions or eliciting NPOV comments. I've struggled with it; my questions invariably indicate my BIAS or POV.

I must admit that I don't have alot of confidence in reaching an outcome editors can accept even if it doesn't go their way. That's partly because of the events of the past whatever days, but more because there is a lot of passion on both sides. This isn't a case where there are 35 things to decide and a group has to slog through them, burn some calories and we'll get there. It's more like a religious war. On the other hand, perhaps grasping at straws, the lack of confidence about this is probably something on which we can agree, and as good a starting point as I can devise.

P.S. Sorry.

John Cardinal 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your reply. andreasegde 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I will try to explain

My personal problems with the project called The Beatles (I got around that one did I not?) are these:

1:

  • People who live on one side of the fence feel very strongly about The Beatles name, and the other side want to keep the Beatles, even though many well-respected sources disagree. This is nothing short of civil war, and very disturbing.
  • The proposition that the Beatles who were members of The Beatles - John Paul, George and Ringo - seems to confuse everyone, when it can be easily explained:
  • If you can insert any word between "the" and "Beatles", it must be a small "t". As in, "When the individual Beatles bought their own houses..." can also be, "When the Beatles bought their own houses", because it refers to individual members, and not the whole band.
  • If you refer to the whole band, it must be The Beatles, as that is their trademark. They only trademarked "the Beatles" as well as "The Beatles" to stop anybody releasing anything with the small "t" name. It's acceptable, even to those of us who want The Beatles. (No, I will not be drawn into a debate about that...) Also, nobody outside the project ever mentions the problem.
  • I wonder what editors would say if they were forced to write new York, los Angeles, north Dakota, the mull of Kintyre, stoke-on-Trent, leamington Spa, or new Mexico?

2:

  • The efforts of editors to get articles to GA is appalling, and makes the project look like a receptacle for fancruft and chat. An editor on an article I recently worked on often complained about the information that was put in, but did nothing to get it to GA. (Kingboyk, Vera Chuck and Dave, LuciferMorgan, myself and others all successfully worked together on the huge Paul McCartney article).
  • The sum of this is that I can not countenance the idea of working on something that I disagree with and have little respect for whilst being berated for my views. I would feel that I would be giving a lot of time and energy with one hand tied behind my back, and being repeatedly rapped on the knuckles for not corresponding with views that I don't believe in.
I am sorry for that, but I feel very strongly that adult people should work together and co-operate. I can't see that ever happening here (even though it did once). andreasegde 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Now, I did say I was gonna keep out of this debate (and I'm so sad to see the trouble it's caused) but:
the Beatles who were members of The Beatles
that, as far as I am concerned, hits Maxwell's silver hammer on the head. --kingboyk 22:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Kingboyk, the wise, and all-knowing one (plus being extremely affable and an admin) has just made me feel justified (as Sam Peckinpah once said) and not an outcast. Logic is always helpful in uncertain situations. andreasegde 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And don't forget
Genesis who were members of an unholy pact with Satan which culminated in "Buster"
Nooch--Crestville 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Crestville, you are making me laugh, and, if I were an admin, I would block you for being too humorous. (Is there such a thing? I truly hope so... :)) I'm still laughing...) andreasegde 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars

It would be nice to see yours too! Ooh er missus! Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You just gave me my first laugh for ages (Uhh-err Missus, I'm having a touch of the hot flushes don't you know, but it's to be expected at my age, Mrs. Brown... I'd best be off and buy some nice bacon for me husband before he gets home from the night shift at the "Garden Gnomes for every occasion" packing plant. :) Keep well. andreasegde 21:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For problem, read solution

There you go then! Sykes is a very worthy cause - is it true that he was blind when he made all his shows? Or deaf? I forget. With Ali I can see you coming into conflic with others again, because that would be a very popular topic. You might also want to look for a project with lots of undernourished periferal characters, because that is where you really shone on The Beatles stuff. Dad's Army is a good one, something like that - lots of episode pages and stuff that could so easily be bulked up to GA.

I love the idea that someone I have never met, from a country I've never been to, who's culture and way of life differs from mine, is not only familiar with me, but sick of the sight of me. My Dad will be pleased to hear I have perfected the art of being a pest! Ha ha, I can annoy Austrians without even trying.--Crestville 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) P.s. of course she knows who Kingboyk is, he's the first one any of us will have spoken to becuase he's a pure professional.

Actually - you Oasis sprog - Marion (me bird) loves listening about my trials and tribulations and my funny stories about you lot. She respects people that I respect, because she's interested in this weird thing called English humour (she laughs a lot, but she's not sure why - even though her Uncle was in the S.S., but she doesn't like talking about that... :)) Anyway, after all this complimentary talk about how good-looking you are, I will ask her what she thinks. She might say that you look like a potato with ears, or a pineapple with hair (like I look) but I will send you her comments (in German, with English sub-titles). andreasegde 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
She must be phenominally patient to sit listening to tales of our dozey conversations. I don't think my loved ones would stand it.--Crestville 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
She does, because I present them in such an intelligent, loving, and explainable way. You are now allowed to shoot me in the foot with a WWI rifle... (Ouch!) andreasegde 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute - are you saying that you NEVER talk about Wiki-stuff? Jesus Huddersfield, I respect your self-control, and the fact that you are an accomplished liar, my dear Cresty... andreasegde 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I never do, honstly! They wouldn't know/care what I was on about.--Crestville 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Kingston-upon-Hull - you must have an interesting life. I don't wish to contine this line of thought, as me bird might quote your sentence to me (she looks at my page when she's on the night shift with crazed kids to check whether you are really real, or just a figment of my imagination). Oh dear, I have just shot myself in the foot again... andreasegde 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry Drew, I'm definately not a figment of your imagination, you didn't just steal a picture from a random myspace account and use it as the basis of a virtual friend. That definately didn't happen. I also hope dear Marion is cooking lasagne for my your tea tonight and also that she will do that thing I, andreasedge YOU like in the bedroom. To reiterate, I, Joe, am real and not just a figment of my own andreasedge's increasingly unstable mind.andreasegde... I mean Crestville!
She might do me breakfast, as it is 2:49 in the morning (in sausage-land) and I am watching Eastenders on BBC Prime. andreasegde 00:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
1:52am here. Listening to the Al Murray podcast. The fuck are we playing at? Bed!--Crestville 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Es macht meinen Nachtdienst viel kürzer, wenn ich mit euch lachen kann! (sub-titles needed?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.186.50.33 (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC). This comment was added by me bird, like. Jesus Heckmondwike, she's on here as well now. I say she only looks at this page to see if I'm really at home. andreasegde 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I still need a translation--Crestville 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ying tong ying tong ying tong ying tong ying tong dildle eye po. The preceding comment was added by a deceased person
99 Luftballons, Auf ihrem Weg zum Horizont, Hielt man fuer UFOs, aus dem All, Darum schickte ein General, Eine Fliegerstaffel hinterher, Alarm zu geben, wenn es so war, Dabei war da am Horizont, Nur 99 Luftballons. The preceding comment was added by Nena
Oi, what have we here? Two bleedin' stormtrooper humorists zat are plastering my page with ze Austrian/German languages? I mog es gern, aber ich hab genug mit meine freundin, danke. andreasegde 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Bitte nicht auf den treppen sitzen! The Caretaker
Did you just read Crestville's page? If you didn't, then this is spooky! andreasegde 17:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
NO! IT'S SPOOKY! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we both think about painful things in our nether regions a lot? Bottle of wine in the "big white telephone"? Uhh-err, Missus, we're talking in code here... andreasegde 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let there be light

But first he had to wait to be connected to the grid. andreasegde 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why I left the Beatles Project

Wikipedia is the overall arbiter of policy over constituent articles or Projects. Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. I apply Wikipedia rules and guidelines to every article/project I edit. As regards the matter of consensus, the rules/guidelines clearly state that debate must be backed by third party references (same as getting articles to G/FA) - and the 'little t' proponents were (and remain) the only party to provide same. If I, as the smallest group, took the decision that the little t proponents had achieved consensus then it was done in accordance with the policies, rules and guidelines of Wikipedia.

I understand the arguments for the use of big T, and support nearly all of them. What I can't do is find any good third party authority which supports this position.

I was debating this matter for a very long time previously, and for a period the arguments that I had found, and the efforts I had put in in finding those arguments, held sway and achieved the necessary consensus. Many of the little t proponents accepted the position, and continued to edit Project articles under that basis (and those that didn't stayed away).

I have always attempted to place my arguments and points in the appropriate areas, and to debate them civilly. If this took up a lot of space and led to neglecting editing articles it was because I believed in the necessity of explaining myself and understanding opposing views.

I was and am dismayed and angry that individuals believe that they can ignore rules, policy, and consensus, on the grounds that they know best and they work hard on specified articles. I am fucking livid with the inference that editors that work mainly on improving article space are somehow more valid and valuable than those who work in the other areas of projects or articles.

I'm a policy wonk. I do things by the book. If I don't like policy I try to change them within the rules, but I would never subvert policy. On this basis I cannot be part of this Project. I will edit articles as before, take part in debate on talkpages, as any editor but I will not get involved any further in discussion about how things should be done because I have no expectation that parties will abide by decisions that they disagree with no matter how legitimately they were arrived at. I am not prepared to be any part in such selfishness arrogance.

So until you grow up, Andrew, you can fuck off and play with your precious pet articles. Count me out. LessHeard vanU 13:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Uhh dear, someone's hot under the collar about absolutely fuck-all. I never said that you personally were included in "the smaller group of people", I only repeated what you had written about the bleeding policy. You can count your own good self out, because I'm already solid gone. If you think that a project where most members don't give a flying fuck if the articles are GA or not, don't have any books, don't know how to put citations in, and just want to put fancruft and POV in is worthwhile, then you have been deluding yourself - so don't give me shit. I only pointed the problems out, and now you want to shoot the messenger.
I only want you to ponder on the one question I have that is crucial: Why was I the only one to put articles up for a GA/FA in the last six months? Does anybody else give a shit? It doesn't seem to be the case, it is the case.
I will allow you to tell me to "grow up", because I wish that I was younger, but I think you will you regret writing that I only care about my so-called "precious pet articles". That is complete shite, and you know it. Now we've both had our rants, I can only say that I still love you, and I wish I had visitation rights for the cats.... andreasegde 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You are doing a lot of people a disservice when you pronounce upon their perceived attitude, yet you criticise me for suggesting that your viewpoint is not the only valid consideration... I'm sticking around Wikipedia and the Beatles related articles because I do care, but I am not wasting my time and efforts on trying to provide a basis for people to work together on a group of articles if people are going to deliberately disregard the results.
As for your question; you were not alone. There were various people contributing under your leadership. Some people like having a gangmaster, someone who takes on the responsibility and provides direction. Now you have flounced off there is likely to be some slack until another enthusiast is found.
My question in turn to you is why is it that nobody was willing help me try to resolve those policy matters, but some felt able to complain they found out what had happened and disregard the results?
Oh, and I meant to say "cared about your precious pet articles..." as I don't doubt your word about not coming back to the Project. You have the enviable ability to focus your energies on the subject of your choice, but in doing so you may sometimes lack appreciation of the efforts of others in other matters. Sometimes being right isn't enough, there are people to consider too.
Whatever you do from now on in Wikipedia will likely be informed by your time in the Project. I hope you learn from it, as I have and am doing. LessHeard vanU 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "contributing under your leadership." Oh, go fuck yourself - don't try to drag me into the/your silly games of power - I truly care about working with people, and I have sodding proved it, without a doubt.
  • As for the rest of your post - it sounds like a fucking teacher with an axe to grind: "You have the enviable ability to focus your energies on the subject of your choice, but in doing so you may sometimes lack appreciation of the efforts of others in other matters." Do yourself a favour and look at your old school reports.
  • Go back to The Beatles - it's the best Boy Scout group I can think of. I'll be thinking of you all sitting round the camp fire singing "Hey Jude" by the beatles, and talking about your B-class articles... andreasegde 18:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info Boxes

Look at this.... Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da Single by the Beatles?. This is a feckin joke! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Such is life, dear Vera... one day we will all be forced to write all sentences about bob dylan, the beatles, the queen, and mr thompson - who travels on the the london underground to get to his job - like this. andreasegde 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
and chip beetle, hank beetle of the beetles, who were put together for an american tv show in burbank california, wrote most of the songs (but it was neil diamond really) and marv beetle had lots of good wholesome non drug taking fun with wacky beetle. Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC) oh, btw, a homosexual thought never crossed eppy beetle's mind.
I think I saw that show in new York, but maybe los Angeles... andreasEgde 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Were you flogging a dead Horse at the time? ;p Nah ha ha ha, topical.--Crestville 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I was thinking about world war One. It's the sh-sh-shell-shock of being attacked (ouch - don't say that word!) by my masters, and the powers That Be, or whatever. I shall now proceed to the locality of my choice. andreasegde 19:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(reply to vera) nah, eppy never did nuffin 'bout his nether regions, he was too busy looking after the beetles in his underpants. andreasegde 20:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's right mr. President sir. U.S. Marshal (peanut) Presley
"U.S. Marshal (peanut) Presley". That is the weirdest name that anyone has come up with. £5 to the Mr. Peanut Presley andreasegde 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) :))

Do I win £5? Him out of Last Of The Summer Wine who isn't dead yet. You know the one I mean. He does the voice of Pingu I think

That is the weakest claim you have ever made for £5. I am distraught... but still laughing... :)) andreasegde 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you think I've outdone myself? Do I win £5 for that? Slick Billy
In a word, no. You could start with bob-a-job though... andreasegde 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Bob-a-job! Any work you want doing mister? £5 all inclusive.--Crestville 13:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You young scamp! £5 for picking the slugs off my lawn? Oh well, I suppose it's worth it, but only if you do it with your bare hands... andreasegde 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't resist this: Hmmm... Cup of T, anyone?

If it's "the Beatles", the article ought to be Beatles, right? Which, of course, is nonsense... --kingboyk 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know, because nobody likes "Beatles", except for people in Asia, possibly. You have come to this a bit late, Kingboyk, as the civil war has died down, but I greatly appreciate your thoughts. andreasegde 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mimi Smith

I reckon this has a chance at FA and by God you're due one for all your hard work! Fancy giving it a go? (I'd be happy to make the nomination, if you don't want to). --kingboyk 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should, if you really think that it's good enough. I would be sensitive about reading all the FA comments (as we have both been through that before with Macca - ouch!) but I will probably read them. I think that I feel detached enough from it that I will be neutral about the scathing attacks. Oh, sod it - yes, I agree - go for it Kingboyk, and my best wishes. andreasegde 01:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. What a nice bloke you are. I wish you well. andreasegde 01:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. Mimi Smith being an FA article when John is still (and probably always will be) a B-class article? she would be laughing in her grave. Good old Mimi, she always had the upper hand... andreasegde 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just had a look at it, and there are a few little things that make it seem clumsy. As I am no longer a contributor to this beatles thingy, I might just give it a wipe with a damp cloth. One doesn't like to abandon one's children, as Crestville says... andreasegde 02:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Lovely. Drop me a line when you're happy with it, and I'll nominate it :) --kingboyk 11:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going through it, but I don't think it has much of a chance without a photo of Mimi. andreasegde 02:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Just use one of Charlize Theron, no one will notice and it'll get FA DEFFO! Vera, Chuck & Dave 20:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I wouldn't kick her out of bed! --kingboyk 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think she is one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen - and from what I've read, she is just as beautiful on the inside. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
How about one of your fit wife? (Tee-heh... Ouch!) andreasegde 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
...Well if you insist, but there's not a lot between em though [1] Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos aren't absolutely necessary for FA, but I agree that it would be nice to have a picture of her. Since she's deceased, I think this is one instance where we could get away with a fair use image. Does Google Images throw up anything we could use? --kingboyk 13:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I found two or three, and one with her and John, but I have no clue how to upload them, or if I even dare. I will beg Crestville to help. andreasegde 18:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The George Medal

Alright our andrea? Guess wot? "the" Beatles isn't the only victim on Pediwikia, they're calling The George Medal, George Medal. The warrant states: It is ordained that the Medal shall be designated and styled "The George Medal", but I suppose George VI was wrong as well! Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Woolwich Aresenal, you should stop the rot. You have the fecking' medal, but they'll probably say that that's orginal research. andreasegde 02:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just looked at George's (FA) page, and it doesn't mention the medal once. Somebody messed up there. andreasegde 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That's easily resolved. Do you have a reliable source for the wording of the warrant? (The article currently has the warrant saying "the George medal", but with a {{fact}} citation). All we need is the wording with a citation and if it's "The George Medal" I'll either move and modify the article myself or officially propose it at WP:RM. --kingboyk 13:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Warrant: [2] Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt we could accept that website as a reliable source, tbh... --kingboyk 17:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The George Medal: [3] Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Citing Vera, who actually won one? andreasegde 18:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes strikes again

I have a new idea about the Brian Epstein page (which I did a lot of work on before I gave up this Beatles thingy): I think that user Davidpatrick is Martin Lewis. Check out Lewis' history page, and note who makes the most edits.

"Martin Lewis—a protegé of Derek Taylor—has become a vocal champion of Epstein's memory, creating "The Official Brian Epstein Website", which includes a petition that Epstein be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame".

Brian didn't get a GA because "Davidpatrick = Lewis" wants Epstein inducted, and doesn't want anything bad said about him. Go on - tell me I'm wrong... andreasegde 21:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)