This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kingboyk. 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 just wanted to tell you that I miss our conversations, my dear Stevie... Here's a bit of sunshine to cheer your talk page up ;) Hope to talk to you later! Hugs, Phædriel♥tell me - 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for cheering me up, my dear Stevie boy! You are worth gold to me Phaedriel
Ooh, thanks Sharon! What's "Orane"? (sun? a mistake? :P). If you see me on MSN drop me a hello, whether marked as "away" or not. Chatting in private is better! ;) --kingboyk17:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Lol, no, copy and paste mistake derived from 18 hours in a row with no sleep, Steve hun ;) I´ll catch you in MSN in a matter of seconds then! Hugs, Phædriel♥tell me - 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict) Aww shut up! I'm embarrased enough as I am... ;)
Thanks! I was worried you might not consider it amusing, glad to know I was wrong on that count :) --kingboyk11:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Question from new member
Hi, sorry if im mistaken but is this the way to ask you a question? Am i supposed to write here?
I posted an external link in beatles discography and you deleted it. I read the policies about external links and didn't find any reason for this.
The content of the page is free, it has no popups and stuff like that and it contains info that you dont have in your discography. It is the only page in the net where you can find all different covers for every country and exact catalog numbers.
Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Issovia (talk • contribs) .
Well, a week went by and no one did any migrations. I was a bit stressed and did a few more letters in the background... but at this rate it will take forever because it's not very exciting. Shame to lose the info though. I am NOT asking you to do any but I AM asking you for ideas as to how to motivate others. I don't think I even got any replies. ... ideas? ++Lar: t/c17:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Beatles trivia on the chopping block
Dear Beatles editors, I have just seen a header that “The Beatles trivia“ is being considered for deletion. I would like you to take a look at it and vote to keep, or delete. The consensus will win the day, as they say…. I will not vote, as I have been personally involved in the construction of the page. andreasegde01:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Now Then! How's tricks me old china plate? Just to let you know, the article on George Smith, John Lennon's uncle, who raised him as a son, is up for deletion. While I in no way wish for non-notable people to be given articles purely on the basis that they are related to someone famous, Smith was like a father to Lennon and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles mythology (if that's the right word). He features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, which highlights close connotations to the fact that he is mainly famous for his relationship to Lennon. Other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon. I just thought I'd give anyone interested the oppertuninty to voice their opinions here: [[2]]. Ta very much. Ps: Nothing.--Crestville14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I've recently added Libya to the list of featured article candidates. Overall the candidature is going well with many of the objections now sorted out. The final concrete objection is with the article's prose. I have been the main contributor to the article and have been looking at it for the previous 9 - 10 months. My eyes no longer see it freshly, so I am not a suitable copy-editor!
To meet the final demand of copy editing, I have been advised to ask different people to edit parts of the article.
I would really love to get this article featured as you can probably see from the page's history! I've worked very hard on it and I see this as possibly being the final hurdle.
You can see the prose objections, mostly raised by Sandy, on the candidature page. If you have the time, please choose a section (Politics, Religion, Culture etc.) and copyedit, perfect, ace it! I would be very grateful with any help I can get.
Should Wiki be in British English (as I have read) or American when it deals with American subjects?
I have been told: (American president, American history. We use American spelling. Put your fibres in Churchill articles) Pertaining to the different spelling of "fibres" (GB) and "fibers" (USA).
I'm not Steve, but use your best judgement. The manual of style has some thoughts on this but if the topic is commonwealth related, use commonwealth spellings, if American, use American. if the topic is unclear as to what it's related to, use whatever spelling the first major contributor used. Avoid revert wars over spelling, they're not really a good idea Hope that helps... happy editing! ++Lar: t/c15:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute involving where or if the Magical Mystery Tour album or double EP which be in the article list. I say no. The current version as I type this mentions albums and double EPs released in the UK. What do you think? Steelbeard110:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Lol, thanks. I know I mentioned round tuits today, but I forget where... had no idea we had an article on them though! Cheers for that. --kingboyk19:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, indeed. Well, Bill will get a great article soon enough. Unfortunately my co-conspirator in articles pertaining to The KLF - User:Vinoir - has disappeared. Hopefully this round tuit will hasten his return! Cheers mate. --kingboyk21:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Beatles Newsletter - sweet FA
There are two "top story" areas, one in the newsletter body and one in the editors area. Chose whichever you want to put the FA in (my choice would be the newsletter "lead") and put the Article Assements in the other (the editors hot topic since it is a follow on from last month). However, if you feel that the FA needs special attention then the AA will have to be dropped. The "From the editors" section could be used as a call to arms if you think the matter warrants it. Lastly, for the moment, lets use the review to get some momentum going again!LessHeard vanU22:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. The FA issue has to be the lead; it would be a blow to the Project to lose Featured status for our eponymous article. I think we can and should mention the AA again, however. --kingboyk15:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome to the Biography WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biographies.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Firefly article in Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! great to have you on board Kingboyk! plange18:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll bring me Wife then, wot wiv 'er being the posh one of the fam'ly- stand a chance of being served then:)Lion King15:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Importance criteria
Mmmm... thanks for changing some of my "Importance" judgement calls on some of the BioWikiProject templates. I get the increasing impression that I have mis-interpreted the guidelines! It may be an idea to re-word those guidelines, cos I read andre-read them 4 or 5 times, and I still could not make head nor tail of them.
You may be interested in this sub-project, cos I would not like us to get off on the wrong foot here:
Unfortunately, the importance ratings are very much judgement based at the moment, so there are going to be some disagreements along the way. Hopefully, some consensus/standards will emerge, so it's important to have some consistency in the early ratings if we're not to have a right mess later on :) I wouldn't want you to think, though, that I have some special understanding of the situation and that I'm right and you're wrong, as it may turn out to be the opposite! I do, however, have the feeling that for biographies, "Top" class should be the legendary historical figures that the average man in the street would know the name of, the icons of the twentieth century (Beatles, Marilyn Monroe, Mohammed Ali, etc), US presidents, etc. Lesser known historical figures, celebrities, sports champions who aren't household icons and so on I would consider "High". I might be wrong! :) --kingboyk11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC) PS I'll take a look at your Project, thanks for the headsup.
Mary, top. John Knox, would be top or high - would an enyclopedia be worthy of the name if it didn't have an article on him? Salmond should rank around the same as Prescott or Kennedy I would have thought, which is currently High but might be Top if I'm horribly wrong! :) Ordinary MSPs, mid. Connery I would put as high, in the same bracket as Iggy Pop, but maybe he's Top. Geez, this is difficult isn't it?! Perhaps I should stick to WP:KLF with our 45 or so articles :) (Which, with you being a Scotsman, begs the question - what importance is Bill Drummond? Mid? High? Say Low and thou shalt be forever ignored, lol.) --kingboyk11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that! Obviously I suffer from advanced Mommy Brain. Anyway, perhaps someone should create at least a stub article for the book. ♥Her Pegship♥19:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. We haven't decided what to do with the K Foundation articles yet. I doubt we'll give the book a seperate article but we'll certainly be endeavouring to improve the layout. You can be forgiven for not realising there was a book too as it's not at all clear right now :) Cheers. --kingboyk19:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. What's going on at Talk:Pablo_de_la_Llave/Comments? I had to look up "refactor". Wiktionary says it implies not changing the meaning, but you did. Originally I said I couldn't find images of Pablo de la Llave and and Plange suggested incorporating images of associated places. Now you have me saying I couldn't find images of associated places, either. (In fact I've done so, but adding them to the article is a very low priority for me.) Maybe a note to let me know that "comments" pages shouldn't contain pleasant conversations would have been a better way to handle this. —JerryFriedman17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What? Is this such a big deal?! I was making a comments page shorter for transclusion, and made it clear that I had, end of story. Totally unimportant and not worth getting irate over. A /comments page isn't a talk page so I consider myself at liberty to edit mercilessly: they are like to do lists, and contain details on what is right or wrong about an article. --kingboyk08:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's a big enough deal for you to work on, it's a big enough deal for you not to change a true statement into a false one. (And not to put in a typo, which I just corrected, though I can't object to that too much since you edited out a typo of mine.) I'm sure you have a very high standard in editing articles. I suggest that your standard in editing things signed by other people should be at least as high. —JerryFriedman17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Despite it being the lead news article of last month, there is still help required in the assessing of articles and the migrating of comments. Lar is willing to provide assistance to those unsure how to do this.
The Beatles article, the "Flagship" of the Project, is currently under review with regard to its Featured Article status. It is hoped that the review will identify those areas that need some(/lots of) remedial work, and that the Project participants and those editors who are involved in the the FA admin pages to can work together to "save" the status of the article.
At the moment there is some discussion as to why it has been listed, and what may be needed to help it retain its FA status. It may well be that some work is going to be required in formulating a plan of action, and then some more in achieving those aims.
The FA status is obviously quite important to the Project, and it would be appreciated if participants are able to provide assistance in keeping the article up to standard. The editors would be grateful if those persons receiving this Newsletter could spare some of their time, energy and brainpower in keeping this jewel in our crown in its proper place. Please go to Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Beatles and get involved! Thank you.
As mentioned in the Project News section, The Beatles article has just been listed for a review of its Featured Article status. Working on this is quite important.
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 005 – September 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just 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.
Phaedriel's RfA
Thanks for catching my mistake. I saw in the dif that he hadn't changed the neutral number and didn't realize that he hadn't upped it earlier. JoshuaZ16:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Happy Birthday!
Sweet dear Stevie, I'm sorry about missing your birthday... but hey, I kept you this cake inthe fridge! You are awesome, SK! ;) HAPPY BIRTHDAY! to you! With my best wishes, Phaedriel
Sorry I missed it, mate... but at least you got a newsletter! Many happy returns and I guess I owe you another pint. ++Lar: t/c19:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you want to add the Scouting categories to something, go ahead, but please don't remove them from any categories, we have them set that way for a reason.Rlevse19:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, my self important buddy who thinks he can trample all over the cats and ratings of a project he's not involved in. I don't care what you think. It doesn't hurt anything to leave them in the Scouting category also, that is the topic of the project after all.Rlevse21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
AWB & Bio
I haven't been brave enough to tackle this yet :-) Only thing I was holding off on was getting the task forces voted on and decided, so we can tag people with the appropriate task force too....plange20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see. That might be too difficult really. All I was planning to do was... well, have a look at this: [5] Basically a run through Living People tagging with living=yes and no more (remember, it's over 100,000 pages). Then perhaps a similar run through Dead People. I'd have to do it in a semi-automated fashion you see, wouldn't be practical to do it any other way. --kingboyk20:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The August 2006 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Your edit count
Username kingboyk
Total edits 18974
Distinct pages edited 7902
Average edits/page 2.401
First edit 20:18, 22 September 2005
(main) 7300
Talk 3203
User 281
User talk 2199
Image 156
Image talk 16
MediaWiki talk 2
Template 289
Template talk 110
Category 1154
Category talk 145
Wikipedia 3016
Wikipedia talk 997
Portal 87
Portal talk 19
Hi Steve could you please keep an eye on this page please, they are taking out info, have RV twice now Cheers - didn't your lads do well! Lion King18:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't edit other people's signed comments
Please don't edit other people's signed comments. You should set AWB to not edit any of the talk namespaces. Re: [6] -- Ned Scott08:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Refactoring is allowed. I changed no meaning, only the name of a template. I'm sure it's perfectly proper. --kingboyk08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's no problem then.. It just seems to have been a bit of an issue lately, mostly with typo checking, though. I guess it's a bit of a grey area. -- Ned Scott08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I think fixing people's typos in talk might be a bit much (unless the editor in question signed at the end and stated they had done it). Thanks for not biting my head off anyway. --kingboyk08:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a semi-bot (AWB) and I don't have a bot account yet. It's not mandatory for AWB. When the account has proven itself useful/harmless I'll apply for a bot account and then you'll no longer see it :) Apologies for any inconvenience in the meantime. --kingboyk11:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. The only complaint I had was the large number of edits happening so quickly that my watchlist quickly filled with the little maintenance edits. Dismas|(talk)18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Your bot has placed a template on the talk pages of several articles I have written, telling editors to obey WP:BLP. Do any of these articles not obey WP:BLP? I am all for maintaining standards, but this approach does seem a little heavy-handed.--Runcorn15:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I've no idea if they do or don't obey it, I'm sure they do. That's what gets output if the WPBiography template is added with a parameter of living=yes. In essence, I'm the messenger and you're querying the message: a message which can be changed if consensus dictates, certainly, and very easily - simply by editing the template. At the present time, the standard is that bios of living persons get these warnings - and, in fact, to make it not appear to be aimed at any one article or set of editors and to be not heavy-handed but normal, it's best if they all have the message I think. If you still disagree with that message however please raise it at Template talk:WPBiography, Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, or Template talk:Blp. Cheers. --kingboyk15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
There is currently no exception for Portals, although it has been proposed and rejected before. Fair Use is avoided on the main page as much as possible. ed g2s • talk14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But I maintain and assert that it is fair use, legally and morally. There's no need for copyright paranoia. --kingboyk14:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Legally perhaps, but Wikipedia tries to avoid Fair Use whenever possible as we are trying to provide free (as in freely reusable) content. ed g2s • talk14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, this was speedied, contested, undeleted, and taken to Afd. I noticed it'd been deleted again and undeleted to let the Afd run it's course, but after that I saw it was already closed. Most people at DRV wanted to delete it via Afd, but I found a few sources for this and wanted a chance to work them in. Would you object to unclosing it and giving it a bit of time? Friday(talk)14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I hate to leave this in a confusing state- no offense, but I'm going to unclose since there's no need to hurry this (the speedy was already contested). Friday(talk)15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, looks like nobody linked to it. No biggie. So far I'm the only one who things this isn't pure junk, so maybe I'm wasting my time, but I'll work on getting some sourced in there. Thanks for being understanding. Friday(talk)15:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I got it (and got an edit conflict when was writing to say so :)). I'll get back to you but not right now so please be patient. --kingboyk17:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to pester you, as a response is not needed urgently, but I was just curious as to what you meant by "not right now" (I was thinking a couple hours, but obviously that wasn't correct). Do you mean several days, a week, a couple weeks? I just wanted to make sure you didn't mean to get back to me, but just got swamped with e-mails and forgot. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What's the rush? :) My advice would be to chill out for a while longer. As for the email, I'd half forgotten but I'll answer in the next few days. I'm terrible at answering emails, sorry. --kingboyk23:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's me again, but I'm just saying that I'm pretty much retracting the e-mail. This is not at all because you haven't responded, but simply because recent events regarding admins (particularly the Jtkiefer affair, the discussion regarding Nathanrdotcom's block, and my fears over fallout from RfA 2) have cooled my ambitions for adminship to an all-time low. I'll wait for when others judge I'm ready and needed, rather for when I personally feel I'm ready. So essentially, disregard the e-mail. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yikes! Sorry mate! I think it's probably for the best anyway. I'm reasonably confident that if you wait for a longer period (perhaps 6 months from RFA 2) before RFA 3, you'll get it. Come back to me then and I'll see about nominating you - you can contact me on-wiki since I've offered. Cheers. --kingboyk15:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please remind me to unprotect if it's still protected tommorow. Cheers. (I also blocked the IP address). --kingboyk17:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Semi-protection would be fine, but there was sort of an edit war as well, so I guess it's ok. Thanks again. —Khoikhoi17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed to semi probably as you were writing to me :) Made a mistake, haven't protected a page for a while. --kingboyk17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there any chance you could slow your bot down some? It's going at such a speed that it's been filling up my watchlist every day lately, which makes it rather difficult to find actual new edits. Rebecca00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'm taking a break for a few hours anyway, and will slow it down a touch. The problem, though, is that we have so many articles to tag it will take probably a week even at speed, so if I were to slow it to a pace such that people wouldn't notice the edits the job wouldn't be done in any reasonable time period. I hope that's OK. --kingboyk13:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation problem from Beatles newsletter
I trawl the High Court disabiguation list from time to time, fixing the links to High Courts all over the world. Your article on the Beatles that ref to the High court, presumably High Court has been replicated a large number of times. Would you please do the disambiguations. ta FedLawyer12:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we (the Newsletter editors) all got this message. Since you and Lar have the Wiki experience I shall be guided by you two.LessHeard vanU12:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I've added the corresponding sources to the stub above, as requested in the Talk page. Please proceed with the prescribed procedure. Yours, User:Ejrrjs says What?21:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've rated it stub class. Please note that the message on the talk page is a general warning that's being put onto all living persons biographies, I see nothing problematic in your article :) --kingboyk21:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
iTunes Originals.
I have to dispute you on your restructuring of the iTunes originals article, and all related articles. I made the article and I checked up to the best of my ability. The official title of the albums (as listed in the "Album Title" field of the tracks) is iTunes Original - [Artist name]. The "Cover image" may make it appear that it's just iTunes Originals, but since it's iTunes exclusive, I purport that the album title field should be followed rather than the album cover. It's just like on a self titled album, an artist doesn't usually put "Joe Smith" twice to list the title and the artist name. TheHYPO23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This is my thanks for sorting out the categories for you is it? I did indeed go by the cover shot, and also by Wikipedia convention. I don't think it matters a great deal either way, and redirects are still in place so people should have no trouble finding the articles. --kingboyk23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with thanks, and you really shouldn't take things so personally. I merely brought up up something I thought you probably didn't check (the album field - which you say you indeed didn't check). For me it has to do with what I think is a conversion for the worse. Now you have a big pile of albums all titled iTunes Originals and need a (Bjork album) tag after them. Either way, it's merely about wikipedia being a source so the album titles should be as accurate as possible. I believe the album field is the official album title. TheHYPO23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by the album field? In the MP3? On the website? I came over from WP:ALBUM in response to the categorisation request; I've never used iTunes in my life and intend to keep it that way! :) --kingboyk23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
iTunes Originals are iTunes exclusive tracks. They are ONLY available for download. As such, they have information built in just like mp3s, but the info is put there by iTunes (or the music label selling the album which in this case is iTunes itself). Since it's iTunes exclusive, and iTunes is the origin of the audio files (they aren't mp3s, but an apple audio format) I believe that the info tags in the song files themselfs are the official sources of the song titles, album title, etc. TheHYPO23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll show you screenshot - note that next to the cover image it actually says iTunes Orignials - 3 Doors Down, and then under that, the artist name 3 Doors Down. It can also be seen in the album column of the songs at the bottom. This imageTheHYPO23:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
One final note, in the infoboxes and first sentance of the articles on specific iTunes releases, it still contains the original dashed names so either those have to be changed, or the titles should be changed back to the dashed versions (which of course, is the change I'd support making)... TheHYPO00:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me know what your thoughts on this is considering the title with the new facts presented - I am inclined to reverse the titles back to the dashed form, but I'm not here to start a conflict, so I'm waiting until I hear your opinion on the matter. TheHYPO11:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit busy at the moment (working on an esoteric template) so haven't had time to think about it fully. However, if you want me to move them back I'm happy to do so. --kingboyk11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand your reaction to the cover art (which since the albums are not physically existing, is merely an image that pops up when you play the files) and assuming that that is the title, but the official title based on how the files are tagged and how the releases are titled is iTunes Originals - Artist Name - I don't think there's any rush to set them back, but I do think that they should be returned to those titles when you get the chance. TheHYPO11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: If you're marking esoteric templates, you might want to look at infoboxes - I've seen a number of if-based infoboxes that do not have the esoteric tags I know that the music ones don't such as template:Infobox AlbumTheHYPO11:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That does look rather messy. The Simpsons project has a much simpilfied similar template. I've had to work on template logic a lot as I've been working on propagating articles in my own wiki which has results in importing a number of templates (and adapting and modernizing them often). It's annoying enough. I'm not super at wiki-programming, but I'm pretty good with programming logic in general, so if you have any issues you can't figure out, I'm here if you want a second opinion. Might be out of my league, I don't know. :) Thanks for reverting the iTunes articles too :) TheHYPO11:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thanks so much for voting, Kingboyk!
Thanks so much for your support vote on my request for adminship! With a final vote count of (82/5/0), it succeeded, and I'm now an administrator! I am thrilled with the overwhelming positive support from the community, and sincerely thank you once again for taking your time to voice your opinion. Feel free to contact me with any comments/suggestions in the future! —Mets501 (talk)03:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
MySpace - Macca/Beatles
I think you called it right re Macca's mySpace (or however the wretched thing is supposed to be). With his money you would think he could get someone to create a decent page, and I agree that the bio jars more than a little - far too throwaway regarding Lennon and the impending divorce and, hey, George is ignored again. Something a fan might do, but not Macca. I also note that Lennon and Harrison are "friends" but the site has only been in existence since after Georges death... I have my reservations regarding The Beatles mySpace too, but it is linked to the "official" (per Wikipedia entry) website so I suppose it is legit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) .
