User talk:Lion King

• The King Of The Beasts says,LIONS HAVE PRIDE, NOT PREJUDICE and thanks you all for your kind messages of welcome, and words of encouragement that are listed below;

Hi. No problem at all. Mrsteviec 21:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I've changed the text to something more general in light of an editors comment on the talk page. Better to be vague and accurate. Mrsteviec 10:19, 6

November 2005 (UTC)

Note

To avoid losing stuff you have typed up, you can use a Word Processor like Microsoft Word or Notepad, and save often.

Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang [ T ...C ]

17:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem

Eltham

Hello. The County of London was created in 1889 by the Local Government Act 1888 which included Eltham. There was no further expansion until 1965 and the London Government Act 1963. Mrsteviec 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Sara Dylan

OK, I'll expand it some more. But I mostly just moved stuff around; all I took out was 1) some repetition (songs) and 2) some stuff about what Hans Lownds said about Dylan, and 3) how Sara and Bob met, which I found a different account of (Mrs Grossman, not M.G), I don't know which account is correct.

Sorry if I removed anything important or useful; by all means put it back in if you want to. I'm sure that together we can make the article a good one. Herostratus 06:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I know! It's SOURCE I Did it Wiki Wiki! Lion King 02:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. We have some disagreements about this article. Let me state my point of view: for an article like this, I image two audiences (1) A college kid writing a report like Influences And Symbols In Bob Dylans's Work and (2) someone just interested in an OVERVIEW of Dylan. So for an Encylopedia article you have to leave some stuff out, cuz it's just supposed to be an overview, sort of.

Normally you wouldn't even put a celebrity's wife in an enccylopedia, unless she also did something notable on her own, which Sara Dylan didn't. She makes the grade here (but not by much)two reasons: The person she married is SO famous that he one of the very very few people for whom even relatively minor details might be of interest, and (2) Sara DID influence some of his song.

But there's a limit. Really the article should just be mainly about her influence on the songs, in my opinion, with a little bit of biography thrown in, mainly as it relates to her marriage to Dylan. But HER biography BY ITSELF is not really of interest. So putting in details of what her first husband did to her name before she even met Dylan, I don't really think that that belongs. If she was famous BY HERESELF OK then it would make sense.

Similarly, how she met Dylan... I have no objection to including it, but I don't care if its there or not, it just isn't that important. I don't see why it matters whether it was in 1962 or through Grossman in 1964. Anyway if you do leave it in you should DEFINATELY cite the source, since I've seen other accounts.

(BTW I just learned how to site a source myself yesterday, here is one way to (just in case you didn't learn this yet)). This is gonna look weird when you first look at it you go into Edit mode to see what I actually wrote.

1. Create a "References" section (with the ==) at or near bottom of page.
2. Immediatly after the statement in the article that you want to reference, you put {{ref|1}.
3. Then, in the References section, you put:

pound sign^ Something about it like "this is the source for statement blahblahblah

And so on for other references except you put ^[1] etc, obviously.

(Where I wrote "pound sign" you would put a real pound sign) (If the source is not a URL you would skip that part an just describe the book)

Anyway... I actually think the entire section "Common biographical errors" or whatever its called should go. I left it in cuz I didn't want to tread on your work, and I don't really mind including it, but another editor might have taken it out.

Anyway, the article is OK but I might go back to it later on. There was a thing about how Dylan sang Sara to Sara at the recording studio and she was like all choked up, and that was the actual version used on the album and it was the only take. I think that maybe oughta go in.

OK good luck carry on! Wiki Wiki Herostratus 18:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC) --- OK, yes I see your point. Seeing as there's inaccurate info on the web, it makes sense to have an entry with the correct info. Can you give me the name of your source for the correct info? If its a book just the name of the book will do.Herostratus 22:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

SteveO

Hey LionK. Nope I don't know any SteveO. What's going on? Herostratus 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. I may not get to it today, though.Herostratus 22:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Football Police Speaks!

Have I upset you my dear? Typical Millwall fan. I told you why Wikipedia is here beacuse don't appear to know. Its not here just to overstate the achievments of your team. SteveO 16:47 11 December 2005 (UTC)

By football police, do you mean those trying to give a balanced view of Millwall's achivements rather than a mere panegyric? Oh, and tou chez! SteveO 18:18 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the Millwall page. Cheers. SteveO 20:42 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I wondered how long it would be before you resorted to insults. Have you ever considered that your own petty pride has something to do with it? SteveO 14:52 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Using facts now, are we? I thought you didn't like facts. You certainly didn't like the facts I put in the Millwall article. (ps sorry for the lateness of the reply, I've been busy the last few days) SteveO 14:55 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The Grapevine

I was at Hero's talk page, and saw your problems, lemme give a see to this. karmafist 06:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me know if he puts it back at the Millwall article, i'll protect the page. He was on the verge of 3RRing there, but didn't quite do it, and it isn't really big enough of an edit war to cause a fuss in my opinion. Try to work it out if you can, and let me know if I can lend a hand if needed. karmafist 06:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

No Hooliganism Here

Ok, Hooliganism might work over in the UK's stadiums, but here on Wikipedia, that ain't cool, my brutha. Let's try to figure out if we can come to a compromise here, or i'll protect the page. karmafist 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, i'm talking about Hooliganism in general and I figured it was germaine particularly here since Millwall fans decked the referees with concrete ;-). karmafist 19:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Apology

I will, no offense intended, it was just a joke. I don't care about Millwall one way or another, probably best evidenced by the fact that i'm watching Football right now, but not the kind you're thinking of, which is Soccer to me. karmafist 19:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

American "Football"

Of course they use their feet! They kick the ball through the uprights and they're running around everywhere without the help of any wheeled vehicles, beasts of burden, or Star Trek-like Transporter devices (beam me to the end zone, Scotty!) If we really want to get into sports naming, then I should ask you what's up with Cricket. Do they use bugs or something? Is it because people fall asleep for being there for days? I've never seen a game, but it sounds like a mix of baseball and a bad afd debate.

• Anyway, the good guys are up right now 14-0, so i'm happy. Keep me posted on any more reversions if they happen at Millwall. karmafist 19:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yankees Suck

• • Wow, when dead people think your sport is boring, then you're in trouble. Anyway, the Pats must've heard you, because now they're up 28-0! Hopefully I can repay the favor the next time Millwall plays somebody so I can cheer across the ocean. The only F.A team I think most Americans know anything about is Manchester United, but they're too much like the New York Yankees for me, and since the Yankees Suck, I couldn't bring myself to cheering for Manchester. We might not not have riots or race wars in our sports (Celtic v. Rangers up in Scotland, among others), but i've been at Fenway Park and heard fans chant "Yankees Suck" even when the Yankees were playing several thousand miles away several hours later. Hell, i've heard fans around here chant "Yankees Suck" at entirely different sports...at the high school level. karmafist 20:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Geezers?

Big hard geezers? Does that have something to do with Viagra? The Pats are going to win the AFC East no doubt, but it's looking grim for their chances to repeat as Super Bowl champs.

Anyway, thanks for the history lesson, I wonder why the Millwall dock workers didn't go on strike for better wages as well, it didn't say anything about it in that article on the West Ham page -- their home uniforms look damn fruity if you ask me, and that song about bubbles and sticking things up asses? They must have a big queer fan base. Everybody knows that if you're going to have a team song it should be about riots and women written in the 1900s sung by a punk band.

It's interesting that regardless of the culture, sports rivalries have similiar threads. Even though it goes back farther, the Red Sox and Yankees fans really started to hate each other after Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to the Yanks, beginning what was known as the Curse of the Bambino, which we broke last year. Maybe now the Yanks are cursed eh?

Boston and New York's rivalry would probably be there without any history, Beantown has a big chip on its shoulder when being compared to NYC in anything(lemme ask you this, does the average Englishman know where Boston is? They might, but I bet far more known where New York is.) In addition to that, the Yanks' arrogance has caused fans from Cleveland, Atlanta, Seattle, Minneapolis, and to a lesser extent Los Angeles and Brooklyn claim that they have rivalries with the pinstripers from what i've heard, even though their rivalries suck compared to ours with NY. karmafist 19:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In Case I Don't Remember 10 AM on Saturday, My Time

Come on, you Lions! karmafist 20:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with stats?

Can you do me a favor and send over a few of the differences? And also, put in sub sections into there if you don't put in new sections. karmafist 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude, What'd I Say?

It's a pain in the ass searching around for who said whatever last. Please make new sections or subsections like i'm doing here. I'll protect the article now and ask for opinions on the talk page. karmafist 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Here's What You Do

• The differences thing.

1. Click on "history tab" at the article the thing happened on.
2. Find the edit you're talking about, and then click the "diff" button
3. Copy the address from the brower bar at the top and then plop it down onto wherever.

• Making sections

1. Make two equals signs at the top of whatever you say like this ==Ok, Here's What You Do==

karmafist 21:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RE:Millwall page(s)

Please note that the exchange below contains football banter, and is not meant to be offensive. Well, not really..

(but not related to recent dramas)
A belated reply to your message on my talk page. I see you have been quite busy recently, so I expect you have not been too worried about being ignored by li'l ol' me.. Thanks, I didn't do much on the actual Millwall page though, except add an external link that I have found quite interesting, and add it to Category:Millwall F.C., which it should have been in from the start (and I added the stadiums to that cat too). I should point out that I'm a West Ham fan, so be sure to check my edits for POV ;-) I made a start on the page for the old den (rescued from New Pages), but being a West Ham fan, I don't really have the inclination to do too much work on it ;-) I think it deserves more work though.. Maybe I'll see you at the Orient next season ;-) - N (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Irons Calling Lions

Teddy's been great, and will be a Hammers hero despite being sullied by the two scummiest teams in London ;-) - N (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

JUST BANTER

Chill out mate, I'm only joking ;-)

Given the long and illustrious rivalry between our two clubs, you can't expect there to be sweetness and light between us though can you? It's an interesting issue, and one I take only partially seriously, football is supposed to be fun and is certainly not worth offending people over (if I did, I apologise). The Spanish refer to the intense rivalry between two clubs as morbo. We don't really have a word for it, and hatred is often, inapproprately, used. I certainly don't hate Millwall or their fans (with the exception of the minority that have gained the club its reputation), but do enjoy a bit of vaguely insulting banter with them (as I do with fans of Burberry Hotspud, Chavski and ManUre). I am of course more than prepared to accept some stick in return. Our inability to beat you in 6 attempts is probably worthy of a dig, and the 4-1 in 2003-04 still pains me.. ;-) N (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Irons Calling Lions

LOL, yeah, Dowie's too good for Palace. In answer to your question (seriously this time), Teddy has been vital in some of our games this season, especially at the start when other (younger and less experienced) players were finding their Premiership feet. Unfortunately, he has also been missing in others. It really depends on the way the team is playing, given the fact that he is almost pensionable and can't run anymore (not that he ever really could). It's sometimes obvious that in a fast pace game with sudden switches in play and counter attacks, he can't keep up. He's been injured for the last couple of games, so Bobby's been getting a few starts. TBH, his goal of the month against Birmingham (it would be a travesty if it wasn't, Rooney against Wigan was great but he does that every week) might well secure the Z-Man's place in the team, at least for a little while.. - N (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I like the word sullied and would like to use it more in conversation. - N (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Refrain From Personal Attacks

Saying things like this[2]isn't going to help your case, Lion. karmafist 08:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Courtauld

Hi,

I am not sure what you mean about Stephen Courtauld. I did not edit this article if you check the edit history. All the best, --YUL89YYZ 09:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

England, assorted insults, and uninvited history lessons

As I'm sure you know perfectly well, for historical reasons there is an English cricket team and an English football team, but that does not mean there is a country called England. England is a region within the United Kingdom and has been ever since the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707. Grow up and stop wasting people's time. Adam 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't make stupid edits you won't be in need of advice. Adam 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam is 100% correct in his edits. There has not been a state called England since the Act of Union of 1707. Queen Elizabeth was born in the United Kingdom. England is a historical political term and a current day geographical and sporting one. It does not exist as a state and has not for nearly 300 years. If you try to add in inaccurate information it will simply be deleted. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

To stop you making stupid edits. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My name. Don't be so paranoid. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you bothered to check my user page you would see that Fear Éireann is Irish and means Man of Ireland. Fear = 'Man'. Éireann = genitive case of Ireland, meaning 'of Ireland'. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

England, and MY page is now "Speakers Corner".

England is one of the 4 British nations. It has not been independent since 1707. Scotland, Ulster, & Wales are also British nations. England is the odd one out,as it does not have its own Parliament or Assembly. Ulster's Assembly has been suspended, thanks to the subhumans from Sinn Féin/I.R.A. engaging in the promotion of Britanniphobic hatred & terrorism against the Protestant majority in Ulster & the Protestant minority in the Republic of Ireland itself - a form of 'ethnic cleansing' similar to what the Serbs were doing in Bosnia-Hercegovina, Croatia, & Kosovo. - (Aidan Work 03:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

"subhumans", eh? What does that make you, Aidan Work, for making such extreme use of Wikipedia for your personal soapbox. When people call others subhumans, then genocide is not far away. Stop. 68.164.153.119 08:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a Paisleyite.

Lion King, I am a very loyal supporter of Ian Paisley of Ulster, who is the fiercest Royalist in the entire British Commonwealth. He should have been made a hereditary Lord years ago! I often look up Ulster & Irish Unionist websites. Here's links to 2 of them ; [[3]] & [[4]]. - (Aidan Work 03:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

"Ulster" is a historical region of Ireland which includes parts of the Irish Republic. You should not use it as a synonym for the British province of Northern Ireland. In either case it is incorrect to describe it as a "nation" in the same sense that Scotland is a nation. Most people in Northern Ireland consider themselves to be either British (if they're Protestants) or Irish (if they're Catholics). Adam 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl

G'day Lion King,

"Fear Eireann" is just Jtdirl's way of expressing pride in his country. It's not intended as a threat, or anything of the sort. I've only seen him make one objectionable comment above, and I'll leave a note on his talkpage (as a neutral) about it. I'm sure he didn't intend any insult or anything like that. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

He is pretty fearsome, though. Adam 07:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

the Hurricanes

Your edits on the Beatles page broke the wiki links. Perhaps a redirect to Rory Storm and the Hurricanes is in order? (or a move of said article) John 20:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting. After looking at the style guide I might get pedantic myself and do the move of the Rory (and Gary)'s article.

User:80.1.224.12

That IP is shared by god-knows-how-many users, but his addition to London seemed legitimate, I guess it came from one of the good users of that IP. He's on my list of suspicious IPs now, though. If you see him vandalizing again, just give him the usual warnings, then report him. Obli (Talk) 14:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

London page

Hi there. Thanks for your note on my talk page. The anonymous user who keeps vandalizing the London and Paris pages uses several IPs unfortunately. It seems he/she keeps changing IPs every other week or so. Here is a list of IPs I have gathered: 82.35.100.238, 80.195.235.28, 82.35.100.95, 82.35.100.65, and 62.31.47.101. Check the history of these IPs contributions, it's quite revealing. Hardouin 14:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

Because it had been protected for over two weeks. Page protection is supposed to be temporary. Izehar 18:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)