User talk:Andreasegde/Archive 34

August 2011

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. I've tried to ask you kindly to adjust your attitude [1], and I see that others have complained too [2] [3] [4].

However, I think we're beyond "tone it down a bit please" at this time, and I feel I must issue a clear warning:

Edits such as these [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] are not acceptable. You need to change your attitude. You are welcome to air your views on content, and even your view that stubs should be deleted; however, you are not welcome to attack other editors, to be snide, contemptuous, sarcastic, or otherwise uncivil in interactions. Comments must address content-issues, and must be constructive, aiming to improving the encyclopaedia.

I do not wish to analyse every one of those edits, and explain exactly which part is overstepping the mark; I really think it is obvious. If necessary, I will take further steps, and I'll have to waste my time analysing it all; but what I'm hoping is, that this can stop, now - before further action is necessary.

If you desist your aggressive attitude, then this is the last that needs to be said on the matter. Thank you for your time. Chzz ► 10:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain this?

Why does the sandbox on your user page lead to a page that says User:J3Mrs/sandbox?--J3Mrs (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been explained so you don't need to.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a perfect example of trolling... looking in a sandbox.--andreasegde (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Hello Andreasegde. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed two external links that would probably fail Wikipedia criteria for fair-use.--andreasegde (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COIN

Hi! A user recently reported you at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Swarcliffe. They never notified you and there really isn't any evidence provided so I thought you might want to help by shedding some light on the matter. OlYeller^Talktome 14:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is outrageous; someone called Emory Christer has written a book entitled "Andrew Edge", which is available from Amazon for £34.00. Apparently, all of it is taken from Wikipedia. There should be a law against it.--andreasegde (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License covers this type of re-use of Wikipedia content. Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I think the rules are being changed, because the license is being used for financial gain. It's almost funny, because something that people do for free is redirected to the marketplace. If you gave an old shirt to Oxfam, would you expect to see it being sold on the internet?--andreasegde (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of it about: the publisher is Cede Publishing, which leads via a redirect to a whole table of similar imprints. PamD 23:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that it's somewhat odd to see "Wikipedia" books for sale when people could just read the content for free. I've been aware of them for a while, not just the 'Andrew Edge' version, take a look in Google Books for "George Washington Wikipedia" or "Thomas Jefferson Wikipedia" or "Marilyn Monroe Wikipedia". These various books are marketed and put together by multiple entities other than Wikipedia itself and are not the same, for instance, as Wikipedia's Book:George Washington. Re:"profit - The CCS-SA doesn't seem to mention or address profiting (or not-profiting), just that the source receives attribution. Shearonink (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the legalities, but it's still wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia foundation has chosen to issue its content under a license that allows commercial reuse. It may well be that you would have chosen different licensing terms if you had started an online encyclopaedia, but when the owners have quite deliberately chosen to allow such use, what is wrong with taking up that option? This is not some sort of unforeseen loophole, it was a deliberate decision. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking me to not disagree with it as it is, or are you telling me to accept how it is? Please, do tell.--andreasegde (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your question. I was saying that if an organisation deliberately chooses to make its work available for commercial reuse then it is not "wrong" for someone to take up that option. Whether you or I agree or disagree with the decision to make that option available is a completely different matter. Personally I would have used different licensing terms, but that has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of the fact that some people have chosen to reuse the content in the way that the owners of Wikipedia have decided to allow. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's legal to do all sorts of things, but that doesn't make it right.--andreasegde (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It would be nice to have a link to know exactly why, and when, an image was deleted, no?--andreasegde (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be. Click on the red "image" link in the bot's edit summary and look at the large pink boxes at the top of the page it takes you to. --Carnildo (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you! Hmmm, Copyvio for a Commons photo?--andreasegde (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Edge...

...or may I call you Andrew?

Tis little more than a storm in a pisspot, as far as I can see. Someone has, without looking through your userpage history (I seem to recall you <used to be?> in the category "Contributors who have an article" back when you were fond of penguins), found out that you and a certain credited musician are the same person and you have been editing articles where said musician has some history. For some reason, this other editor has become convinced that there is something nefarious about you imparting verifiable information regarding your alter ego and associated subjects... As Jayron32 has noted, on the discussion page, the lack of appearance of over promotion of any instance regarding yourself rather negates any concerns. The only concern that I would have is that the reporting editor never considered approaching you and asking whether User:Andreasegde and Andrew Edge might be the same person - as I recall you have never denied it when asked, previously. I think you may benignly ignore the issue, unless someone brings up a concern over the articles editing which may impinge upon a potential conflict of interest. I trust this helps.

I see that this seems to have gone away... but I will leave my comments above - just to indicate that I have read the initial request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank thee kindly, as always, Mark.--andreasegde (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

There is a serious problem on the Swarcliffe page, as some editors are ignoring any advice about the edits they are making. I have made a list of mistakes on the talk page, to which one editor replied, "I have no intention of going through the list of "errors" ". Help is very definitely needed here.--andreasegde (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morning, #9

Patrick McGoohan in The Prisoner? That appears to be you right now - good luck from number two. --Patthedog (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bang right.--andreasegde (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swarcliffe housing estate

[13] [14] [15] [16]

Whether it should be;

In the 1950s, Swarcliffe housing estate was developed by the city council

or;

In the 1950s, the Swarcliffe housing estate was developed by the city council

As you have changed this twice, from the version myself and another editor has put, you appear to be engaging in an edit war. Please stop, and discuss it on the talk page, so we can work towards a version that represents consensus among editors.

Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Thanks, Chzz ► 04:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many times have you warned the other editors about the Swarcliffe page? Have you ever given them a warning, or even a mild piece of advice about their edits? You are not being neutral at all. Please prove me wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[17]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for informing me of this Boderline harassment.--andreasegde (talk) 06:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, it seems to have disappeared. Where did it go?--andreasegde (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Into the bin.--andreasegde (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal

Hello,

Just to let you know, I will be mediating the Swarcliffe mediation case. I have a few opening questions for you, so if you could please answer them on the mediation page, it would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Robotnick2 ^Messages? 10:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

thanks for your help!

Pumkinhead001 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon/McCartney or Lennon–McCartney

There is a discussion here where we could use your input. Thanks. CuriousEric 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles/Years Active

There is a discussion occuring here involving debate about whether or not the Beatles were "active" during 1994-1996. Your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Free as a Bird" proposed lede change

FYI, there is a vote taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mills

Thanks. Really odd that it had been overlooked, specially with the Leveson Inquiry in full swing! That pap sounds a nasty piece of work. Google him to see a photo!! Manxwoman (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All My Loving

Happy New Year! You may want to contribute to a discussion on this article's talk page - your views, either way, would be appreciated.--Patthedog (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit suggestion for Heather Mills page

Happy New Year! Can I suggest that the first 2 lines of para 3 be removed (as they are already covered in the later section [London and modelling]), so that para 3 starts "In London in 1993...". It does not seem to be part of "a life summery" which seems the norm for the opening section...? Just a 'tidy' idea and I think may read more succinctly. Manxwoman (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huge apologies. We seem to have got out of synch. I posted the note to you and then went ahead and did what I suggested! Then I presume you read the article and deleted the wrong (I suggest) para! My fault entirely. I have re-inserted the deleted para and I think that it now reads rather well. But its entirely up to you... Once again, sorry. Crossed wires! Manxwoman (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help requsted

hi you helped out a great deal with "the Ghost of a Saber Toothed Tiger" I am currently working on this page http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alter_Egos Could you please assist with this if you get a chance?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumkinhead001 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady McCartney

Please see Talk:Heather Mills page. Manxwoman (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Manxwoman for reply. Manxwoman (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeLouis (talk) has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

.

Thanks for cropping and improving this image! GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming the Beatles

What I want to do is to smerge as much of the tedious CD release info/detail as possible into The Beatles Discography. And I am certain that my edits will reduce the size of the article. While I truely do appreciate your ambiguous support statement a bold support would go a long way toward the community allowing me to do that, because as I'm sure you know, a bold support from you means much to the community. Anyway, if I mess it up, it can easily be fixed/rolled back. I am certain that I can improve the article, and reduce it's size if allowed to restructure/smerge the CD/discography info, so give me a chance, I think you'll like it, thanks for your time, cheers! — GabeMc (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mills article talkpage

Hello again! I posted a 'gut-reaction' reply to Ralphfcolucci latest offering on the Heather Mills talkpage, which has caused an understandable questioning over relevance from another editor. Just so you know, he makes a fair point, so if you feel the need to delete/archive it, I have no problem whatsoever. You should have seen the length of the first response I was going to post!! Its been a slow day! Have a great weekend. Manxwoman (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

I have already made one civility request on the talk page here and now I am making a second request, asking for you to please maintain a civil tone per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Also, per WP:TALK, please avoid making comments about my editing such as this one:

"If her siblings were mentioned before, and then Eddie Scissorhands comes along and deletes two of them, but then only adds one back, and not the other one, it is ludicrous. Do you believe that Lennon was an only child, or do you know that he wasn't? Why not go ahead and delete her parents? Who cares? Obviously not you."

If we stick to the content and speak to each other in a calm, civil and respectful tone, I think we can make some good progress on the article together. Thanks and Peace out my brother,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do not understand simple sarcasm. It's a form of humour, and it is legal. I am talking about the content. If you have messed up the article with inept edits, you have only have yourself to blame. See the talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a further illustration of the points I have just made above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that your case is weak. I know the system.--andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land mine picture/Heather Mills page

As you are doing such a grand job tidying the article, do you think that the picture of the land mine "against which Mills campaigns" is really necessary? Otherwise, should we not include a picture of a set of skis "upon which Mills races" etc etc? Manxwoman (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, but is it a Commons photo, or fair use?--andreasegde (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew what you meant I would be able to give you a succinct answer! Manxwoman (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duh! Got it! Shall I remove it, or you? Manxwoman (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. :)--andreasegde (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC):))[reply]

Done! Keep well! Manxwoman (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCartney FAC

As I'm sure you know, Paul McCartney is currently at FAC. Your input there would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't know.... Uhhh, I have just looked at it, and I see they're dragging you over the FAC hot coals by your feet, as they always do. My best wishes.--andreasegde (talk) 08:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they are, thanks. What do you think of the article? ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too long (that's why it was split into relationships and musical career, etc.), but it looks good. I'd vote Support, but I've worked on it too much. Good luck.--andreasegde (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. I know, it's a bit long from all the suggestions that have come in. It's a tough balance, trying to please everyone, hoping they will !vote, knowing they might not anyway. Ahh, it's been a tough month. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that when I went for FAC, they hassled me because it was over 100,000 bytes, so I did an immense amount of work cutting it down. The feckers... :))--andreasegde (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]