This is an archive of past discussions about User:Crestville. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I like your articles on Friends characters, but do things like the entertainment unit need articles? Mike H 17:20, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
What does it matter? It can't hurt. I'm bored out on my skull, i need something to pass the time. All I know is that when i first visited this site a couple of days ago, I was dissapointed by how little their was on friends, in comparison to stuff like the simpsons. I really enjoyed reading all the details people had put in, and i thought, wouldn't it be nice if someone did the same for friends. At best it could entertain someone for an hour or so, at worst, you can ignore it.
But don't worry, i'm done with Friends now. I noticed the Oasis section looks a tad undernourished.
I was just trying to be nice. :-/ Mike H 17:40, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be nasty mate, just making a point.
--Crestville 17:44, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) Jobe
Images
Hi. Just a note--be sure that the images aren't copyrighted; see Wikipedia:Copyrights for more. That out of the way, what are you having problems with? Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 06:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not sure why that would be. I've copied your question to Wikipedia:Help desk; hopefully, somebody a little more computer-literate than me would know what's going on. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar(talk)]] 16:58, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Bottom
Hello, that change to the Bottom article was made in good faith. It simply didn't occur to me what 'placters' was a misspelling of, so I put what I hoped would be the right answer. Thanks to you taking a different view I've now got an insult stored in the history of that page which is undeserved.
What I tend to do, if I think someone is messing about, is look at their other contributions - you can then tell pretty quickly whether someone is acting in good or bad faith. You mgiht want to consider taking up the habit before spreading your sarcasm. Cheers. --bodnotbod 17:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. ;o) Buys you half a pint of lager. Well, I'm on a budget. --bodnotbod 18:42, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Napoleon is ongoing. Thing is, although it is amusing, it's also very relevant. I think he believes in heroes. I don't. Well, not infallible ones, anyway. But I confess that researching that section did make me laugh... ;o) --bodnotbod 19:30, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
The entertainment unit
Yes I did delete the article in question. It was listed on Votes for deletion for the standard five day period, when there were no objections to it being deleted I did so. If you wish to see the discussion where consensus to delete was formed, it can still be read at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The entertainment unit. If you would like to see the page restored please list it at Votes for undeletion. I personally have little opinion on the validity of the article, having never watched the show in question. I was just responding to the perceived will of the community and I wish you luck in your attempt to have the page restored. - SimonP 00:23, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
The Entertainment Unit
Personal attacks against someone for expressing their opinion are not acceptable. I would thank you to simply refrain from them in the future. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:07, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Patient: You bet! I ranted and raved. I gave those no-good, insensitive, dirty, rotten, filthy, foul, corrupt, indecent, inhuman, bilge water, finks a piece of my mind.
DrWiki: Did it help?
Patient: (very quietly) They deleted it.
DrWiki: But did it help?
Patient: No.
DrWiki: Time's up, that will be $150. Cash only, please.
If you didn't care about other people's opinions, you wouldn't have left messages on the talk pages of everyone who voted for deleting it. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:19, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please Ladies and Gentlemen, learn from Cyrius and don't leave irritating, pointless, self indulgent 'comedy' skits on my talk page. Your co-operation is, as always, apprieciated. Special thanks to Cyrius. Your mistakes are a shining example to us all, God bless you. --Crestville 19:15, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You're being really offensive to a lot of people, and it's not making us like you any. I'm just sayin'. Mike H 19:17, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC).
The entertainment unit
It's not the content I had a problem with, just the fact that it was a very short piece of trivia which could and should be part of a larger article (e.g. Chandler and Joey's apartment) rather than under its own general title ("Entertainment Unit"), which confused me the first time I saw it, and probably anyone searching for that term in a non-"Friends" context. I've taken the liberty of adding the text to Chandler and Joey's apartment, which is what I voted for, although this might not have been clear. --Ianb 09:44, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jealous Guy
My hat's off to you. Fantastic job with the "Jealous Guy" article. I will see if I can find any other tidbits to add, but I doubt I could add much to what you've already done. Cheers. ffirehorse 02:46, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This barnstar has been bestowed on User:Crestville for his splendid edits to Jealous Guy, turning it from a stub piece to a beautifully introspective, fully fleshed out article. Kudos!A barnstar for the awesome job - you deserve it! Jealous Guy is the coolest Beatles entry I've seen on Wikipedia yet! Gaurav 20:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Eh
I don't care. I wasn't ever trying to be catty and I wasn't out to get you. Just wanted you to know that. :-) Mike H 02:02, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I apologize as well. Thank you for the kind gesture. Mike H 20:55, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
We used to watch them over the satellite on CBC. Plus, my gran's from Birkenhead so we got things that other Americans wouldn't have seen otherwise. Mike H 21:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
You're allowed to vote for admin, as is any contributor. If you want to vote, type # and then four tildes to sign your name. Put your vote under all others. I appreciate that you want to vote for me. Thank you. :-) Mike H 18:54, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
You're not offensive any more, mate. You've decided to put a good food forward and make amends, and I find that very commendable. Again, thanks for the vote. Mike H 19:30, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Picture
It depends. Did you get permission first for using the picture? If it's a screenshot of your entire desktop or a webpage, it can be argued that it's fair use, since you took the picture of the entire thing yourself. Again, it really does depend on what you're taking. Mike H 18:58, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe. Is it a publicity photo, or was it from a magazine, or a still from the show, or what? It's also very important to contact the website owner of where you got it and ask. It's common courtesy. I'm going to the bank; be back in an hour. Mike H 19:07, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
It should be best to wait for the permission, since they took the shot and not you. In any case, it's really easy to get people to say yes. When they do, you would put the tag fairuse with the {{}} around it into the picture description. Mike H 20:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
Importance
I'm not certain why you are intent on reopening a closed discussion. My judgement with regard to fictional characters is not based on their national origin. Thanks for your opinion on my demeanor. - Nunh-huh 23:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Closed" in the sense of "over with" rather than "exclusive". As in sleeping dog, lying. And while we disagree about the importance of national chauvinism, there are plenty here who are strong advocates of civic vanity. I just don't happen to think either is an issue regarding spinning off the fictional personae of comedians. Good luck to you as well. - Nunh-huh 17:01, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see no context in John Lennon's article that "Ono" was admitted into his full name. Please tell me how it got into his full name. Marcus2 23:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that something seems to have gone wrong with this article's name. mat_x 20:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oasis
I don't know enough about the band beyond a passing interest to be qualified to expand an article, however I thank you for the offer. Zerbey 22:23, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Noel Gallagher, etc.
Hey there, Crest. Sorry if it seemed like I was going after your work. I'm a bit of a Beatles nut, so I was looking around the articles which linked to it, and tried to pep them up a bit as I went. And yeah, the usual style is that albums are italicized, while songs are in "quotes". Nice work, regardless. - Vague Rant 03:26, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Oasis
Mate, I'm happy to contribute that's all. Thanks for the tips, I'll do my best to stay neutral and I'll do whatever I can for Oasis and Radiohead. My future plans are to enlarge Blur article and write bigger info about Radiohead and Blur members as it's done for Oasis. If you can provide me with any help for my favourite britpopers - it'll surely be apreciated. :).
Cheers mate! Peace, love and bananas!
Painbearer 03:15, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, don't flame on me so much! The "only" thing you edited that was mine stuff was Be Here Now. The stuff you remade on WtSMG and Definitely Maybe sections isn't mine thus I didn't do it. My only aim is and was to show what was and is the actual state of affairs surrounding Be Here Now and I strive to made my best being indifferent. But if you disagree - fine, it's your choice... But don't get so mad at me...--Painbearer 12:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)
Although I like your additions to the article, I think it needs some rewording. Carol Cleveland was the only significant non-member, appearing in all but a couple episodes, and in the films. Her contributions dwarf those of any of the other people you list as possible 7th pythons. Also, she's the only one who was actually referred to as the 7th python. I think a better way to write that section would be to list her as the 7th python, but then say at the end that there were other notable contributors, and then list those. --brian0918™ 14:13, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tom's reply
Tom has asked me to tell you that the word "creationist" offends him, as it implies a rough equivalence between the delusions of the pseudo-scientific "evolutionists" and the true scientific view that he and his colleagues hold. I have tried to convince him that a NPOV requires him to acknowledge the validity of both points of view, but he says that he has already shown that the NPOV is nonsense in the face of the truth. Too Old 18:33, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
Never argue with a True Beleiver.
And it seems to me [says Carptrash 17:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) , butting in uninvited] that as you are studying law, you had better get over the compulsion to 'kill" [your word] those that you find annoying. Oh yes, and I think our friend Tom [who I see as being more of a metaphor than flesh & blood] will soon have a Pope to back him up. More facts, as it were, at his disposal.
My hands and wrists
Thank God, my hands began to feel better when I went home for a month. My situation hasn't come back so that's good. :) Mike H 05:10, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Actually I didn't contribute this amounts of info about the Britpop. The guy obviously knows much, but I question if whether this info is really suitable. Let's see what will happen. Roll up your sleeves and let's start further tidying this article. It's coming great, I reckon... Painbearer 18:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
em dash
Hi,
The em dash ( — ) is just the proper piece of punctuation for separating parts of sentence by a dash. I sometimes replace hyphens with em dashes when I see them used in articles where the em dash would be more appropriate. Check out [1].
In any case, I think you've done a really good job on the "Supersonic" page. I really love the song, and it was nice to get a little bit of backstory on it. Thanks for the good work.
Why are you reading my talk page?
Bored. I got there from Ludlow CO
Why do you not understand exaggeration as a form of sarcasm?
My 5th Garde teacher thought that I was mildly retarded. She might have been right.
Why would the Pope sway my well established religious beliefs when he is little more that a figurehead?
Does your "well established religious beliefs" not have a figurehead too?
Why do you think science is less reliable than religion?
Not more, not less. The same.
Can I have some money please?
My unemployment checks [‘the dole’ USA style] ran out long ago. So, "Yes you May – but not from me."
Why do you care what I think?
I’m a New Age, caring sort of fellow.
Why should I care what you think?
If I give you $$$$$$$$ will you care?
Do you really think I didn't realise Tom was a "metaphore"?
Sorry, I meant "metawhore."
Do you think I really meant to kill anyone?
I’ve learned [opinion] that this is something best NOT said, especially in writing where almost anyone in the world [opinion] can read it.
What time is it?--Crestville 17:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)--
11:38 AM
Why are you reading my talk page? In the words of Edmund Hillary, "Because it’s there."
Who?
That’s a "where" -- Ludlow Colorado – you posted there at the massacre. I also posted there –mine was a picture.
Only me. I don't have a particular religion. Well that makes you your own figurehead. I hope you are better looking than the current Pontiff.
"Bugger" –if this is at all related to your previous statement, "Best of both world, eh?" you can just forget it.
"Nah. It's pretty obvious I didn't mean it."
These are what are often called "Famous Last Words" and are used as epitaphs and the like. What is ‘obvious" to one is not always so to another. Or, "obvious" is just :another way of saying "my opinion." Carptrash 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about falsely accusing you of Ludlowing. It was Too Old who posed there and his conversation with Tom that lead me to you. i guess all roads now lead to Crestville. 216.31.41.111 19:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's about damn time too.--Crestville 19:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Time. Time. What is time? Swiss manufacture it. French hoard it. Italians squander it. Americans say it is money. Hindus say it does not exist. Do you know what I say? I say time is a crook." Peter Lorrie from "Beat the Devil." Carptrash 01:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Britpop
Jeez so much collaborative work. You and I owe to get contacted other ways. Here is blatant? Do you have ICQ? Mine is 334-500-340. Regardless... yeah the Oasis template is nice. Radiohead have one, so I felt it will be nice if I make one of Oasis. It's nice... Took me some time, but I think I did it...:) Painbearer 22:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The inherent problem is of wikipedia:disambiguation between two persons of the same name. On this occasion, these two also share the same nationality and occupation, that of a drummer in a British rock band. Both Alan White and Alan White (drummer) are ambiguous. (For another example of this there are two England international rugby players called Richard Hill, resulting in Richard Hill (scrum-half) and Richard Hill (flanker)). The obvious way to dab them therefore IMHO is by their principle band, whether or not they are still members of the said band, though there may be other ways we might think of, I felt I improved the situation over what it was.
Note too that I did not state that they younger is named after the elder, merely that they share the same name. Dunc|☺13:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Alan White
Can you please give me the link where you found this interview with Noel? please...:) Painbearer 21:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, dude, go and see in the article what I fucked my fingers off doing :)! Painbearer 20:25, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
well, actually they deleted my pic. which I carefully did for about an hour. go and see it now please... I reverted it back. sometimes, I hate this lack of authority on articles. I fuck my time and fingers of writing proper articles on Oasis, Blur, Radiohead, Britpop, Supergrass and some melon-head make shit of my work with deleting all the information or contribution I have provided so far. Painbearer 09:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hello from Notbod the Izzard editor
I'd like to do more again, but I've been suffering repetitive strain injury for a while, plus I really ought to be trying to spend time on stuff that actually pays ;o) But I'm sure I'll keep coming back in fits and starts. --bodnotbod 00:32, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
George Harrison album articles....
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for the compliments mate. Much appreciated. I recently did an entire sweep of all solo Beatles albums - and it was much needed. As you said, it was an uneviable task, but it's done.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Profuse apologies. I keep getting edit conflicts silently, which means that I inadvertantly remove other people's edits. It was entirely unintentional and I have stetted your comment. -- ALoan(Talk)16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Mark Coyle
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Believe it or not, I was actually ediing it at the same time you were. :)
I've not made too many changes, although I'd eventually like to do a proper big article on him cos he's a genuine unsung hero of Oasis.Mr. Monobrow01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Nick mee
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Vslashg16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Um?
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Was your account being used by a drunken friend? Because you have been sensible in the past... this "Nick Mees" stuff is just so much bullshit. DS17:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Noel (response)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there -- thanks for writing. I agree that Noel is a controversial figure, and I didn't say the section should be deleted (or -- in the case of "Controversy" -- be expended into paragraphs was my exact comment). My objection, as well as I noticed other objections regarding these sections, are that they are lists which feel out of place in an enecylopedia. Take a look at Marilyn Manson's article -- a featured article, I should note -- for an example of how a controversy section was put into paragraphs. If you could turn the same information you have now into well written paragraphs, the Controversy section would work. For example, instead of breaking into a list of a) his fight with George Michael, b) his fight with Kylie, c) his criticism of Backstreet Boys, you could probably merge much of that together.
An example that just came to mind now:
"Gallagher often made headlines through picking fights with other performers. When George Michael released his politically charged single "Shoot the Dog", Noel observed "He's... trying to make social comment, this is the guy who hid who he actually was from the public for twenty years, now, all of a sudden, he's got something to say about the way of the world. I find it laughable. That's even before you get to the song, which is diabolical." Similar comments were made regarding Kylie Minouge and The Backstreet Boys, among other performers, calling Minouge's music "unbridled filth" and that the Backstreet Boys "should be shot"."
See, shrinks three list items into a nice paragraph. Although, then you'll probably need something about Michaels', Kylie's, and Backstreet Boys' response. If it was such a controversy, there was probably a war of words back and forth. But you're right, Noel has had his fair share of controversy and I don't neccesarily want the section to go -- I just don't want it to be a list.
As for the "Trivia" section, I've noticed that "Trivia" sections never make it through the FAC process. I don't know if it's an unwritten rule, but they're immediately shot down. The logic is, if it were so important, it'd be in the article itself. Personally, although I find some of the information interesting, it tends to be a distraction and makes a good looking article look amatuerish, considering that the fact he can't drive is mentioned twice in the trivia section. Examples of how you can shorten it; Noel's "dyslexia" should probably be in the article itself since the trivia says it affects his songwriting. Being called "The Chief" could probably be put into the article, too, around where he joined "Rain" and became songwriter -- did they call him that because he was the songwriter, because he was bossy, etc.
The article is very good, only the article could be much better. I have no doubt that it will eventually be a FAC; it's just not ready in the present form.
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
No personal attacks, please. The subject of the article is Noel, so presumably when the article refers to Gallagher, it refers to him. It can refer to Liam as "Liam Gallagher" or "Liam" as necessary. Also, — is the proper way to mark such dashes; while it's a petty reason on its own to object, it doesn't hurt and it looks more professional. I don't object only for small problems like that. The trivia section is unencyclopedic and is very jarring to readers; any information useful enough to be in the article is useful enough to fit somewhere in the article. If it's something pointless and unencyclopedic (i.e. "Foo is 5 feet 4 inches tall") shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. If Noel really is controversial as he is (which I know he is; I've read quite a bit about his antics), there should be plenty of fodder from tabloids to stuff in the controversy section. Johnleemk | Talk18:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's just that I don't see how the phrase "you chimp" is related to my comments or behaviour. :p I've used the method I proposed for handling the naming before on Hey Jude, but I'll admit that it's not always the best solution. Johnleemk | Talk19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Block
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I got a failure notice when I replied to your e-mail, so I've sent my response by the Wikipedia "E-mail this user" feature instead. If that's the same address I suppose the same problem may recur, though. Or maybe it was transitory. Anyway, if you haven't gotten a message from me, could you please e-mail me again from a different address and I'll try replying again? Bishonen | talk19:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
Response to your e-mail
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Joe. Since you didn't get my e-mail and would like it on your page, I'm pasting a shortened version below. I'm assuming you remember what you wrote, so I won't copy that here, except your last sentence for continuity. If you'd like to have more back-and-forth on this, I'd appreciate it if you'd take it to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates rather than continue on our user talk pages. The argument may well be of general interest for the FAC people, and you'd get a wider response, which would be more informative and enlightening than if it's just me. Also I'm kind of too busy to do it right, I have a lot on IRL right now. Here goes.
For the record, I don't intend for any part of this e-mail to be construed as a "personal attack" upon your good self.
It was however pretty rude. Did you really not notice?
I'm sorry I didn't put the block warning on your talk page. I should have, but I simply couldn't believe you wouldn't be watching the FAC discussion fairly keenly, after nominating an article you'd worked on and moving it twice to the top of the list. Btw, as it says on the FAC page, new nominations go at the top. Don't you see anything wrong with bouncing yours up to upstage newer noms, with extra attention as the top post and extra time on FAC before your article "rolls off"? Then I have one question and one comment: 1) What was your purpose in moving the nomination to the top? 2) An action doesn't have to be "prohibited" to be a dumb stunt. Please don't apply Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to force the FAC director Raul654 towards more legalism in place of the good behavior code that now governs FAC. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Look instead at what's reasonable, and at how other people react. For instance, did you notice Worldtraveller moved your nomination back down with a rather tight-lipped edit summary?
Johnleemk also warned you that he considered your "playful jibe" a personal attack. See, if he thinks so (and I think so too), the thing to do is apologize, not advise him to take the rod out of his arse. C'mon, the place for "playful jibes" like that is in interchange with friends who're used to your tone and will (I presume) enjoy it! It's just foolish to hurl them at strangers, and even more foolish to keep it up when they show they've taken umbrage. Bishonen | talk22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC).
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Yeah, I am the same Mr. Monobrow who has the demos site. I don't have a picture of the cover to the demo tape, I'm afraid, the swirling Union Jack thing.
Also, Columbia on the tape is the demo and is the same demo as was used on the !2" promo and which was on the b-side to the Supersonic single. The only difference is that it's a slightly different edit. It's also worth mentioning in your article, that the version of Cloudburst and Fade Away released as b-sides weren't the demos and were re-recorded.
Hi there, I see you have duplicated some of the information that was already in my article on The Real People. Now you have written a separate article on the demo tape I was wondering if this info should be merged in some way - (I originally included the quotes and track list etc in The Real People because there didn't seem to be anywhere appropriate to put it in the Oasis article) what do you think? Jud10:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it would make more sense in the Oasis article. I don't know much about the real people so its up to you really as to whether you think it's significant. I'm not too sure what yer proposing though--Crestville15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was there's no point in still having the detailed info in the Real People article now you've written the other one. It still wouldn't fit anywhere in the Oasis article. If you don't mind I could add the additional information that's in my article to yours, and then I can delete most of the 'Oasis' section in the Real People. (I'm from Yorkshire too, and I went to uni in Nottingham - small world innit!) Jud21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
Wow, that was a long time ago. I removed it because of the ongoing FAC, where my objections had not been met. You can include sound clips as fair use; no need to licence them. A short (~30 seconds?) segment of a song is typically sufficient for fair use. You have to upload them in ogg format, however. I'm not sure how this can be done on Windows, since I use Linux, but Raul654 has a bunch of experience with this, so maybe you could ask him. Speaking of fair use, all the fair use images need fair use rationales. Please read WP:FU carefully, because most of our fair use images probably aren't "fair" at all. Once this can be cleared up, I think the article can be considered "good". Thanks, and no worries. :) Johnleemk | Talk15:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Non-commercial-only images are verboten on Wikipedia, and may be deleted on sight, so you have to use them as fair use (which does not require permission). If you can't find the source, it's okay, but the rationales are very important. Johnleemk | Talk16:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the image and how it is used in the article. This page explains more about it. I suppose you could use the Katie Holmes images as a base for the rationales, but YMMV. Johnleemk | Talk17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
No problem. Us Oasis fans, who seem to be becoming fewer by the year, must stick together. I dont have the swirly union jack picture but I'm sure you will find it on one of the forums.--Play Brian Moore01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
There the best band of the last decade or more but unfortunately there disliked by the media and therefore they won't pick up any teenage fans. DBTT was a very good album.--Play Brian Moore02:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well lets put it this way, they won't go out and sell 18.5 million records anymore and not because there level of music has dropped but because the media cut them to pieces in and around the 1998. Be Here Now was a good album, a very good album, but the media decided to make it up as a crap album. And ever since then, Oasis have not had anyhting near the same level of fans. DBTT was a very good album but its only sold about 2.25 millions copies.--Play Brian Moore16:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was a good album. I think the only reason it hasn't stood the test of time is because of the stick it received off the media. I suppose the fact that DBTT has been ot less that a year is a good point, as I argued on its discussion page, but 2.25 mill is still fairly poor. Anyway, go easy mate.--Play Brian Moore16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Me, Myself and Irene
Who loves me? Nobody loves me. So fuking sad ;). Anyways, that's from Live4ever. Most of the stuff I edited is from there. As for the "minor" editing - it's... just a fucking habbit. I'm sorry, but it's even more difficult for me to overcome it. Though, I will try my best to make less "minor" editing. Respectufully: Painbearer14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: Italic
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Your own super-special trick pie
Ah, okay. I didn't know that, I'm sorry. Still, I'd prefer song names in italics, speech marks look terrible. But there must be someone out there who knows better, so I'll defer. Can I have the trick pie though? Sounds like fun... Dreadlady17:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Changing the style for every music article would mean loads of work, so I will have to get used to it. If I get round to it next week I'll create a trick pie for you so you can give it away to everybody you would like to attack because he messes up such great articles. -- Dreadlady18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, yer probably right. I'm not right to talk like that. In fact I can say wholeheartedly that I'm wrong to do it. But it's not a lack of grammar knowledge. It's called "flaws". I'm a human being and I make mistakes. Yet, again, I do try to have redeeming qualities. Anyways, I'm little bit unnerved at the moment, but that is probably to expect from a 20-year-old like me. Elan Morin Tedronai20:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Radiohead
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks for your supportive words and advice to our friend on the Radiohead article. Oh, and congratulations on coming from Yorkshire and going to uni in Nottingham - both great achievements ;) Keep up the good work and the photography! Hongshi20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No sarcasm intended! Half of my family are from Yorkshire, and I lived 12 years in Nottinghamshire (folks still there) before running away to the Orient :) Agree with your assessment of PB - just wish he wouldn't take offense when people are actually on his side. Anyway, enough said on that - no more of those thinly cloaked (?) Robin Hood threats, or I'm going to have to report you to the Sheriff... ;)Hongshi20:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Liam Gallagher.jpg
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. The JPS23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.The JPS23:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Re: Jacko is a Cunt
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Excuse me? I'm not sure I want to know why Jacko is a cunt, but I would certainly like to know why you are proclaiming this on my talk page. Also, I would like to know why I am so ignorent.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs)00:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, alright, I understand now. I revert so much vandalism that I didn't recall reverting that particular page. No offense taken, I was just a little confused when that message showed up on my talk page. :D Regards. --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs)00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Pardon?
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
you randomly vandalize my posts, and then think of yourself better than me. just because i'm black. that's why isn't it? why victimize me? have a group out to get all people with melanin in their skin? is it a fun thing to do? racist, explain yourself. i did not launch a single attack at you until you started a personal vendetta against me. now i am fighting back, cause i'm not givin' up, no way in hell. --138.130.219.18610:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop being stupid, I kicked off at you because you were being a tosser, writing stupid things and foaming at the mouth like a fucking fool just because someone was legitimately critising your bloved overrated cunt. And you started when you said you wished I had cancer you stupid wanker. We both know there was no way I could have known you were black, not that it matters because I didn't say anything racist. You were the one bieng a stupid wanker. You're a vandal. You're anti-wikipedian. I'm a fucking good contributer. Now fuck off.--Crestville11:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Michael Jackson
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well done spotting the fact that OneSixOne removed the wacko pic of him kissing children. He has, however, taken the picture out again. If I were you, it's one to go to war over, as it's a significant event.--88.105.103.17516:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Helter Skelter
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
This is an obviously personal opinion regarding "the meaning" behind HS - or at least some of the meaning, since he was constructing a song and would go with whatever lyric worked - but my take is that he is personalising a drug experience. He namechecks "Eight Miles High" (by The Byrds, which was famous as a acid-folk song), and various other references to being high and coming down (fast behind you). For me it works when he sings, "Well, you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer". Its only a personal opinion, as I said, but Macca was just as likely to write a serious song ("Eleanor Rigby", wrapped in beautiful arrangements, is still a melancholic song about loneliness) as he was to produce some trivial song about his dog.LessHeard vanU19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... 'twould seem that you enjoy a lively debate (and I've only been reading the first sentence of every topic on your talk page!) so I thought I would drop a quick response to your comment about HS being "proto-punk" - the song was (in)famously covered by my favourite punk (post punk/gothic/and the rest) band Siouxsie and the Banshees...LessHeard vanU19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but Siouxsie sang "You aint no fucking dancer..." back in '78! re; The Beatles - there is loads of stuff that needs doing. Theres a bunch of people involved in a project to collate and cross-reference every Beatle related article; check the banners at the start of the talk pages and see if there is anything you fancy - or you could sign up for the newsletter. Anyone who is able to help is welcome!LessHeard vanU21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Noel Gallagher
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I had a quick look over - I can't say that there would be much I could do. It is definately written by (an) enthusiast(s), but there isn't anything there that isn't backed by a source or reference. There is the difficulty of maintaining Wiki policy is using surnames, simply as there are so many references to either or both brothers, but that should be handled by you and the other contributors - since you know the feel of the article. It is something of a Catch-22 situation, a fan is likely to be both the type of person who would want do the work in creating an article and also not the person to do a dry, impersonal account.
The only comment I would make is that the article is as much about the band (and Liam) as it is Noel. Since I don't know the Oasis article I cannot say if any of it is un-nessasarily duplicated. If it isn't, perhaps the Oasis article should contain the band related "Noel" stuff and this article be solely about activity outside of the band (the punch-ups and feuds would stay since they are about Gallaghers character, so brief background would be needed).
Ultimately, I don't know enough about the subject to be able to edit it without risking losing important/notable information. I hope you are able to work it yourself (or find someone else who can) to get it to GA status. Cheers.LessHeard vanU22:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I found the following comment on my talk page;
"I've had a very quick scan and it looks pretty good to me. It's possible to be both enthusiastic and neutral in outlook, and it's also possible to get fan-written pieces to FA status (as my recent won't-talk-about-it-any-more success demonstrates). It's perhaps a little concerning that the article relies on such a small number of sources, and I think also that each re-used source doesn't need a new footnote. Just give the ref a name and reuse it (<ref name="VH1"/> for 2nd and subsequent uses). I'd fix it myself but I'm a bit tired now (maybe I'll do it some time if nobody else does). Given the length of the article, I think that WP:GOOD is not the best venue for it to get review. I'd suggest listing the article for peer review, with the ultimate aim of FA status. Hope that helps. --kingboyk22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)"
I suppose he was talking to you? Anyway, Kingboyk is an admin closely involved in The Beatles - and is pretty helpful.LessHeard vanU17:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Porridge
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think there was a brief mention of McKay at the end, but I don't recall exactly what it was. It's one of a number of things I left out until I can find the video I taped it on again 8-). Daibhid C20:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. A response. Lets calm down, guys. Crestville, is the picture really that important to you? OnesixOne, why do you want it removed. Wallie05:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Blocked
Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Per this edit, I have blocked you for 24 hours for personal attacks. I haven't got the time for dealing with such childish behaviour and name-calling. — FireFox (UTC) 18:54, 19 May '06
I also urge you to think more carefully about the way you edit Wikipedia and comment to/about other contributors. Please do not make any further personal attacks. — FireFox (UTC) 19:11, 19 May '06
I was blocked at approx. 19:11 yesterday, so why am I still blocked? Slack work, firefox. Slack work.--Crestville18:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It was an autoblock, a technical limitation of the system. But you could have been civil about it, instead of which you had a go at the administrator who blocked you. I'll give you another twelve hours to think about that. --Tony Sidaway18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I despair at this site, I really do. You really put me off contributing. Could you please define "attack"? Given Firefox's behaviour, I feel this is a legitimate critisism. I would ask you to reconsider your rash act. Otherwise, I'll consider just packing this all in, and that would be a shame coz I'm a damn good contributer. In fact, the only reason I was blocked in the first place was because I got annoyed at a vandal and reported him to firefox who did nothing about the vandal and failed to block them for personal attacks on me.--Crestville18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You may consider yourself "a damn good contributor" but the way you interact with people is appalling and you are highly likely to drive others away if you continue in this way. If blocking you to stop you attacking people, and as a call for you to think about what you're doing, is likely to drive you away, it's quite likely that the end effect will be a net benefit to Wikipedia because we won't have to put up with your repeated abusive remarks of which this was just the final straw. On the other hand, you can choose to stay and contribute without abusing ther editors. And you'll be happily welcomed if you choose that course. --Tony Sidaway18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It turns out you were actually blocked at 18:52 UTC yesterday, and your 24 hour block had not expired when you requested an unblock. Since Tony Sidaway blocked you for another 12 hours at 18:41 UTC today, his block didn't stick so I am re-enforcing the block. Please note that your block will expire at 06:41 21 May 2006 UTC. Thanks, — FireFox (UTC) 19:10, 20 May '06
I do apologise, though perhaps this could have been explained either when I was blocked or when I requested to be unblocked.
If that was some sort of "final straw" then why was I not informed when these other "straws"? I doubt you have been monetering my interactions with other users, as this implies, but rather you have had a breif overlook of my Talk Page. If you look carefully, I don't kick off at good contributers (not since the last time I was blocked at any rate, made amends), just vandals who annoy me deeply. Surely it would be better to drive these people away. I share a good relationship with legitimate users - I was perfectly civil to you when you asked me to move the chubby brown thing, was I not?. With all due respect, I feel FireFox handled this situation poorly, and I made this known. I'll explian my problem to him in full when the block is lifted. This wasn't an "attack" or "appaling" behaviour. It's the way you deal with situations where you feel someone is misusing their power. It's a sorry state of affairs if I can't make a legitimate complain without just being blocked. Surely a more appropriate way to deal with it would have been to ask if I realised this could have been constued as an attack and then seeing how I reacted. In this case I would have apologised as I merely ment to comment on what I felt was an injustice (for personal attacks AND vandelism, user OneSixOne did not recieve a 24 hour block). I'm going out now and the block will be over by the time I get up tommorrow, but still... anyway, the point I'm trying to make is I object to being blocked again, but for what it's worth I'll try not to loose my temper at any more vandles. --Crestville19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC) (BTW, please don;t try and construe this as another attack and block me more becasue it isn't intended as such)
You're not allowed to drive off people who annoy you. Put that out of your mind. I do think you're adopting the right approach if you resolve to remove all attacks from your comments. --Tony Sidaway19:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Listen, you've been pretty reasonable with me (aside from the last block, which I still object to - admins are not infallable and surely there is room for legitimate critisim) so I'll leave this issue be. I still have a problem with the way Firefox handled the situation, but I will deal with that in a statesmanlike manner at a later date. I do not go looking for trouble, but I felt I had to take a hand in this situation, seeing as Firefox would not. I admit I took the wrong approach, but hey-ho. Live & learn. I hope my reputation is not now sullied (and I would reiterate I do not attack users with and frequency). I stand by my claim that I'm bloody good at this. Finally, I would advise you to be mindful of OneSixOne. He is a vandel and someone should do something if he offends again.--Crestville19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You'll find administrators helpful and courteous if you learn to work with us and not make problems. I don't know whether you've seen this, but this is how I learned about your case. It's on WP:ANI. I also list my immediate reply.
The list goes on, see his contributions. I've left a message on his talk page, explaining the block (for 24 hours) and given him a serious warning about the future. I'd like to hear what others have to say about this, for example if anything should be done now, or what should be done if he continues to make personal attacks. — FireFox (UTC) 19:13, 19 May '06
He seems to do good work but he's got a foul mouth. I've put his talk page and that of onesixone on my watchlist. --Tony Sidaway19:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
So we do recognise that you do good work. But we want you not to be nasty to people. We can take action to deal with OneSixOne if that is merited. --Tony Sidaway00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I heartily apologise
Noel Gallagher
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I haven't given it a solid read-through because I'm more of a casual fan of Oasis. When I have more time I can do it. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner! Mike H.That's hot22:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Chubby Brown postcard
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The postcard is copyrighted and has been claimed to be fair use (actually that's somewhat dubious claim for a number of reasons). Unfortunately fair use cannot cover your usage of the postcard image on your talk page. Please remove it from your talk page so as to minimise Wikipedia's liability under the copyright law. --Tony Sidaway17:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Newoasis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Firstly I would like to thank you for your note. Unfortunately I don't have much time to deal with situations such as these, I'm currently very busy with revision. Now about the email you sent me. I recieve a considerable number of emails a day, and it seems in this case I overlooked your email and did not read it, I apologise.
The thing is, it's not bad language that's really the problem. Of course we like to keep the bad language on Wikipedia to a miminum, but Wikipedia is not censored. The main issue that arises is that of personal attacks made on other contributors.
By saying unprovoked attacks, I meant that nothing had been said to you for you to respond how you did. You may have been annoyed and angered by the actions of OneSixOne, I understand that, but there was no 'verbal' abuse made to you, provoking the attack. You also mention that the removal of a certain picture is vandalism. It isn't. In this case, it is content dispute, and unless an editor breaks the three revert rule, they will not be blocked for such actions, as it is not simple, obvious vandalism.
Whether or not you believe your personal attacks are justified is not an issue. They're not acceptable under any circumstances and are dealt with seriously. I am sorry if you see the way I handled this situation as 'poor', but I disagree to a certain extent, in my personal opinion at least. It is also my opinion that I have never "talked down to you" in any respect other than I am an administrator, and you're not. What I mean by this, is that admins are 'placed' on Wikipedia to promote civility, and to cut down on agressive behaviour, and we need to be strict to do this successfully.
The problem that you came to me with was, as I said above, more of a content dispute than anything else. I hope to think that you appreciate that I do not have as much time to sort issues like this out during exams, and I do show that on my userpage. It is up to the person who wants an issue sorting out (in this case, you) to decide whether to still talk to me about the problem and possibly not get the result you wanted, or to either find another admin with more time or post it at one of the admin noticeboards.
I do not agree that blocking you for calling a fellow Wikipedian such a harsh name was a misuse of powers. As I have said above, and will say again, removal of images was a content dispute, not vandalism, so it would have been the wrong action to take if I were to block OneSixOne. Neither do I see how anything that happened in our 'transaction' yesterday as you mentioned, was a misuse of powers.
True, I didn't block OneSixOne for his personal attack against you, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Tony Sidaway had already warned him for the attack against you on his talk page, and secondly he has no previous history of making personal attacks. Maybe one of the reasons I was so quick to block you is because of your history of personal attacks, and the fact that as you had already been blocked for it in the past, I saw no reason to give you another warning. I'm sorry if it is your view that I took the wrong actions, but I stand by them. Thanks, — FireFox (UTC) 14:45, 21 May '06
Thanks for the note
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Yeah I like Pete, I think everyone feels sorry for him. Then again, the golden ticket housemate is likely to be the only sane housemate in this year, so they stand a good chance of winning. Shahbaz is just hilarious though, he's so funny =] — FireFox (UTC) 17:09, 21 May '06
statues
Hi, thanks for your kind words - Cobden is in the Wool Exchange - God knows where Forster is....he is supposed to be in safe storage pending the completion of the new shopping centre. Peel is in his park.
I replied this on the Michael Jackson page and I meant it
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Probably, yes. But to be honest I didn't actually write the caption, nor did I upload the image. I never really read the caption and if I had, I probably would have changed it. I continued to resotre it (as I've said above) becasue this page lacks proper images of Jackson, because it draws attention to one of the more interesting tales of his life and because I do not like to give in to vandals. Thanks for helping though.--Crestville13:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. That is a very honest statement. I think you have very good qualities as a person, when you come out with a statement like this, especially given recent events. Wallie21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: Don't listen to some people who criticise you here, especially admins. You have shown yourself to have a far superior character to them. Thanks again. Wallie21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
lol, if you say so mate. I think I deserved a slap on the wrist and the admins weren't too bad about it. You on the other hand never even sullied your good name in the first place by swearing or fighting, so more credit to you. Cheers for helping me out anyway, much appreciated. I just don't think the lad understands the point of wikipedia--Crestville00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You really are a decent chap... I sure some think I'm a pain at times too. I also break the rules too, somtimes ones I don't know, and still don't know about. There are so many. I think that name calling is pointless. Also, with young people, (and old ones) they like to have a laugh. Come back with a joke. Breaks the tension. Somtimes, though, I don't like the bossy and adverserial approach of some admins. Many are OK, though. But usually the OK ones just operate behind the scenes, do good things, biulding articles, giving wise advice, etc. Anyway, I do fight sometimes, and this is wrong, but I feel you also sometimes have to "stick up for yourself" when under attack. I think it is a good idea to watch, and also comment on, if you want to, if you think you can help, on the Admin's notice boards. Anyone is entitled to comment. Remember also, if you get into any more strife with anyone, send me a note, and I will try to help. Wallie05:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for your message. Why does everyone think I´m a girl in Wiki? Humph... Maybe it´s the the ponytails (joke!)
Of course I didn´t think you were advocating the murder of a man with a bird on his arm! Am I a man or a mouse? (Ask the mouse; he might know.)
I only "laughed my wedding-tackle off" because your comment was really funny, and definitely NOT stupid.
I even loved your "Bradford is God´s own country, and he can have it" comment.
This stuff in Wiki makes everyone sound really serious, when sometimes it´s only light-hearted banter (but not always, unfortunately.) I always try to do it "the nice way".
Anyway; (get to the point you meanderer) I think that Lennon´s humorous look on life should also be included, and not only in Wikipedia Quotes. Is that not good?
I sometimes think that a lot of people should "chill-out" and have some fun whilst we are doing this (unpaid) work.
P.S.
I am not an American. I was born in Leeds, and I worked in Bradford for my brothers before I moved back to Austria, but keep that between us, and the other thousand hordes of Wiki editors.
Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. A case brought by Apple Corps against Apple Computer, regarding possible infringement of a previous agreement between the two parties in respect of distribution of music, was heard in a London High Court. The story made Wikipedia's front page due to a nomination by our own Kingboyk. The story had an amusing second wave in the news and on Wikipedia; be sure to read the article on Guy Goma if you missed it!
Project News
The Beatles article has been approved for inclusion in Wikipedia Version 0.5, making it one of the first 20 articles to be selected and the first in the Music category.
Eleven new articles have been listed in the Project Log since 1 May.
The hottest Project page this month has been Policy Talk, where some lively discussion has taken place regarding the (perennial) question of the capitalisation of the letter T in "The Beatles". After seeking the comments of Wikipedian third parties unrelated to the project, the proponents and opponents concluded that the current naming policy was correct. The discussion had the added bonus of bringing in some new members.
Project member (and "co-instigator" of The Beatles Project) Lar was made an Administrator. Project member Kingboyk (the other guilty party) has been awarded a Music Barnstar for his contributions, including his work within The Beatles Project, and has also stewarded the KLF article to Featured Article status this month. Sometimes-contributor ZincOrbie has also been awarded a Barnstar for his work on the Badfinger article. Congratulations to all!
The Beatles have been in the real world news recently, but work on The Beatles Project continues as before. This newsletter keeps you up-to-date with what has been happening with the project and, perhaps more importantly, what needs to be done (see the "Issue of the Month" above and the "To Do List" below-left).
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 003 – July 2006). All and any contributions are welcome. Just let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? - It's all here
RE: Your 12?!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I wouldn't read too much into my userpage, it was really an exercise in how to format/link stuff in Wikipedia - although all the facts presented are correct. I do enjoy Monty Python, I have The Big Red Bok but don't have any of the albums or dvd's, and have been known to launch into various sketches - normally at the most inappropriate times, which makes it even funnier (for me).
As for me being "...same age as my Dad. Not that I shall hold that agaist you, but still. Interesting eh? Let's be friends...", er.. um.. oh, whatthehell, why not?LessHeard vanU08:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ps. I'll see your ADD and raise you my genetic disposition that resulted in my sons ASD!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, next time you'll have to complain about feline1 's unpolite behaviour, I'll not stop you. He deserves to be banned. Brian W14:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Heya, great to hear from you. Looks like you've been really busy (And it will look even more so once you started archiving your talk page ;-) ) Everything's going well? -- dreadlady14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright Cresty!
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
But grumpy? Go 'way Soft Lad, I'm a sweetheart really! Corse I'll try to help, and corse we can be friends, I did'nt know I'd antagonised you - If I have, I apologise. Can't do much today though, on duty soon. All the best, Vera, Chuck & Dave14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why wasn't I told? Who do I complain to?
I think The Beatles project is going to be an ongoing situation - possibly never fully resolved. It needs all the help it can get, so when you are ready to come back online in full functioning mode it will be there ready for you. I think Vera, Chuck & Dave (who you now know) and DavidWBrooks are already involved in the two History bits - The Beatles section and the stand alone article - so you may want to liaise with them first.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No I'm not an admin so I can't block him, but if you want to report such activity you can report it to WP:ANI & if he continues vandalism after warnings you can report him to WP:AIV. Thanks. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉)11:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
