This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am shocked to very core to see that this is a B article. How come? If the boys upstairs want more references, then let's give 'em a few right-handers (with references included, of course.) -- andreasegde 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This talk page badly needs an archive. -- andreasegde 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you know?... Macca used to kill frogs with a big stick and call them "Johnny Rebs". He had a collection of 10 or 11 down by the local beck. "Many Years From Now" book... -- andreasegde 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
These need sorting out (which I will do later if nobody gets there first). A great deal of his post Beatles article appears to be under the major heading of "Drugs" (no comment) instead of seperate headings. LessHeard vanU 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There's way too many section headings now. They disrupt the flow of the prose and make the TOC massive. The best thing to do is try and identify themes, group the text under these themes, and then let the narrative - rather than subheadings - guide the reader. I'll see if I can trim a few out. -- kingboyk 11:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Report summary: andreasegde has almost gained his 'Wings' in his current homework project, and although he has done well so far, he badly needs to pull his socks up and work with other pupils. He must realise that he can not do everything by himself, and has to learn how he can invite more pupils to assist him in his endeavours. Mark: 6 out of 10 for effort. -- Headmaster - Foxwood School 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I will put a citation needed on anything that needs one. Anything that does not have a citation will - after a reasonable amount of time - be taken out.
We are here to put references in, but if we don't there is no point putting anything in at all. This article has to be higher than a B class, because it deserves it. -- andreasegde 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has a problem with the technicalities of putting references in, leave a message here and it will be explained. It is not as hard as you may think. -- andreasegde 10:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
To all those who continue with not believing that Paul McCartney is left-handed take a look at the following proofs:
1) On the inside centre fold of Paul McCartney’s McCartney LP it has a photo of him using a hammer with his left hand.
2) On the poster that came with the Band On The Run LP it has two photos of Paul McCartney writing with (yes, you guessed it) his left hand.
3) On the inner sleeve of the Tug Of War LP it has Paul McCartney sitting writing with (once again) his left hand.
Why people continue to doubt Paul McCartney being left-handed is weird, if not obsessive. I suppose next they’ll be claiming the photos are back-the-front? Peter Jensen 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"Some mothers do have them" was a joke to all those who argue over simply things that can be easily proven. I thought I had signed, sorry! But your attack on me saying "including Ma Jensen" (in respect to some mothers do have them)is very personal.
Somebody has removed most of the articles that were on here. Who is it? Peter Jensen 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
When I left my "Some mothers do have them" it was after the stupid comments left by andreasegde. He had talked about the way of finding out how McCartney is left or right handed by which hand he masturbates with. I thought that was pretty stupid to say the least. How can one take such an editor serious? Do you think it was a proper comment to make by andreasegde? I should think not. In any case I apologise if I offended you. Peter Jensen 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The sectioning was a bloody mess. It would never get FA like that as it had no logical arrangement and just about every fact and factoid was getting it's own section. Try to take the reader through each crucial theme. I hate to keep drawing attention to another article of mine, but The KLF won an award at Wikimania 2006 and I think it's layout is worthy of replicating.
Please get to work on this stuff and continue adding citations. The progress has been remarkable and we can get this to FA. I'll follow behind tinkering and cleaning. -- kingboyk 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please put a citation in, and sign in. If you don't, editors might think you are a vandal. BTW, journalists have a way of "expanding" the truth. -- andreasegde 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The news story is that Heather claims it. If you wish to choose Heather's word over Paul's that's your business. However, I think whilst we should report that the divorce case has got nasty perhaps we should refrain to comment on "facts" and go into too much detail until the case is resolved? -- kingboyk 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is very weird for me, but I have to disagree with Kingboyk. We have the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s sections in chronological order. I think the songwriting section should be chronological, because he started writing songs before The Beatles.
I totally agree that being thematic is a nice way of writing, but it would mean writing/rearranging the whole thing all over again. (I am open to offers, BTW...) -- andreasegde 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this article, Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song) was a double A with "Hi Hi Hi". However, according to that article, Mary... was followed by Hi Hi Hi b/w C Moon. So which is it? -- kingboyk 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I am really so sorry to do this, but I will refrain from editing this article until a concensus has been reached about its encyclopedic aims, and style. -- andreasegde 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As of 20 October 2006, I failed this article for its GA nomination, merely because it is not yet ready for GA. There are many expand, stub and also merge templates in the article. I looked into the article history, it has a major editing lately. I'm making a speedy failing for this article and let editors finish this article before its nomination. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This article will be chronological, because it is too long to be thematic. There will be no legacy section, because Macca is not dead yet. It is a 'B' article - which is disgraceful - and it should be (at least) a GA. The workers are united, and we will not stand for any interference from the management concerning conditions.
Our aims are clear: To raise the standard of this article to be free of 'cruft' (edits by fans) and to make it concise and readable. If the management disagrees, they then have the right to block this Union representative whenever they feel the need to do so.
It has recently failed a GA review because of management interference, and this is frowned upon by the Union (with regard to section, B Article - clause 49/WindowsXP). -- Alf Emsley - Union Rep. 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am shocked to very core to see that this is a B article. How come? If the boys upstairs want more references, then let's give 'em a few right-handers (with references included, of course.) -- andreasegde 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
This talk page badly needs an archive. -- andreasegde 15:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you know?... Macca used to kill frogs with a big stick and call them "Johnny Rebs". He had a collection of 10 or 11 down by the local beck. "Many Years From Now" book... -- andreasegde 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
These need sorting out (which I will do later if nobody gets there first). A great deal of his post Beatles article appears to be under the major heading of "Drugs" (no comment) instead of seperate headings. LessHeard vanU 15:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There's way too many section headings now. They disrupt the flow of the prose and make the TOC massive. The best thing to do is try and identify themes, group the text under these themes, and then let the narrative - rather than subheadings - guide the reader. I'll see if I can trim a few out. -- kingboyk 11:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Report summary: andreasegde has almost gained his 'Wings' in his current homework project, and although he has done well so far, he badly needs to pull his socks up and work with other pupils. He must realise that he can not do everything by himself, and has to learn how he can invite more pupils to assist him in his endeavours. Mark: 6 out of 10 for effort. -- Headmaster - Foxwood School 20:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I will put a citation needed on anything that needs one. Anything that does not have a citation will - after a reasonable amount of time - be taken out.
We are here to put references in, but if we don't there is no point putting anything in at all. This article has to be higher than a B class, because it deserves it. -- andreasegde 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has a problem with the technicalities of putting references in, leave a message here and it will be explained. It is not as hard as you may think. -- andreasegde 10:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
To all those who continue with not believing that Paul McCartney is left-handed take a look at the following proofs:
1) On the inside centre fold of Paul McCartney’s McCartney LP it has a photo of him using a hammer with his left hand.
2) On the poster that came with the Band On The Run LP it has two photos of Paul McCartney writing with (yes, you guessed it) his left hand.
3) On the inner sleeve of the Tug Of War LP it has Paul McCartney sitting writing with (once again) his left hand.
Why people continue to doubt Paul McCartney being left-handed is weird, if not obsessive. I suppose next they’ll be claiming the photos are back-the-front? Peter Jensen 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"Some mothers do have them" was a joke to all those who argue over simply things that can be easily proven. I thought I had signed, sorry! But your attack on me saying "including Ma Jensen" (in respect to some mothers do have them)is very personal.
Somebody has removed most of the articles that were on here. Who is it? Peter Jensen 13:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
When I left my "Some mothers do have them" it was after the stupid comments left by andreasegde. He had talked about the way of finding out how McCartney is left or right handed by which hand he masturbates with. I thought that was pretty stupid to say the least. How can one take such an editor serious? Do you think it was a proper comment to make by andreasegde? I should think not. In any case I apologise if I offended you. Peter Jensen 06:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The sectioning was a bloody mess. It would never get FA like that as it had no logical arrangement and just about every fact and factoid was getting it's own section. Try to take the reader through each crucial theme. I hate to keep drawing attention to another article of mine, but The KLF won an award at Wikimania 2006 and I think it's layout is worthy of replicating.
Please get to work on this stuff and continue adding citations. The progress has been remarkable and we can get this to FA. I'll follow behind tinkering and cleaning. -- kingboyk 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please put a citation in, and sign in. If you don't, editors might think you are a vandal. BTW, journalists have a way of "expanding" the truth. -- andreasegde 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The news story is that Heather claims it. If you wish to choose Heather's word over Paul's that's your business. However, I think whilst we should report that the divorce case has got nasty perhaps we should refrain to comment on "facts" and go into too much detail until the case is resolved? -- kingboyk 19:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This is very weird for me, but I have to disagree with Kingboyk. We have the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s sections in chronological order. I think the songwriting section should be chronological, because he started writing songs before The Beatles.
I totally agree that being thematic is a nice way of writing, but it would mean writing/rearranging the whole thing all over again. (I am open to offers, BTW...) -- andreasegde 20:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
According to this article, Mary Had a Little Lamb (Paul McCartney song) was a double A with "Hi Hi Hi". However, according to that article, Mary... was followed by Hi Hi Hi b/w C Moon. So which is it? -- kingboyk 20:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I am really so sorry to do this, but I will refrain from editing this article until a concensus has been reached about its encyclopedic aims, and style. -- andreasegde 21:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As of 20 October 2006, I failed this article for its GA nomination, merely because it is not yet ready for GA. There are many expand, stub and also merge templates in the article. I looked into the article history, it has a major editing lately. I'm making a speedy failing for this article and let editors finish this article before its nomination. Cheers. — Indon ( reply) — 15:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
This article will be chronological, because it is too long to be thematic. There will be no legacy section, because Macca is not dead yet. It is a 'B' article - which is disgraceful - and it should be (at least) a GA. The workers are united, and we will not stand for any interference from the management concerning conditions.
Our aims are clear: To raise the standard of this article to be free of 'cruft' (edits by fans) and to make it concise and readable. If the management disagrees, they then have the right to block this Union representative whenever they feel the need to do so.
It has recently failed a GA review because of management interference, and this is frowned upon by the Union (with regard to section, B Article - clause 49/WindowsXP). -- Alf Emsley - Union Rep. 15:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)