Page 1 of 2

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:06 pm
by Neil Foxlee
Nigel w wrote:Neil pleaded:

any chance of proof reading (and possibly rephrasing) said title?

You're such a pednant, Neil !

Good job some of us are, including sub-editors, copy-editors and proofreaders... (all backroom boys and girls) ;-)

[Nigel's Wikipedia entry deleted at his request, but interested parties can always check: ] [PS Nigel, hope you don't mind the compromise!]

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:51 pm
by Nigel w

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:43 pm
by NormanD
Thank you Neil, and please leave it up. There were a couple of details I may have missed from N's previous postings. Off to the attic now to look for that box of old Private Eyes.....

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:00 am
by Neil Foxlee
I've deleted the bio, but left the link to the Wikipedia entry - if Nigel thinks it's inaccurate, he can always edit it... (Hope that's OK with both of you.)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:39 am
by Nigel w

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:36 am
by Neil Foxlee
Charlie? Actually, come to think of it, Charlie's pretty well connected himself.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:56 pm
by Jonathan E.
Nigel w wrote: . . . . Much more accurate version than Wikipedia can be found in Who's Who.

Surely I am not the only person who finds this to be an extremely amusing and revealing sentence.

But I think you'll find those responsible here: — not that I can understand much of it.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:25 pm
by Jonathan E.
But I still say that Sly & Robbie are the most connected backroom, even backroon, boy(s) of the C20th!

The Wikipedia thing is somewhat weird. It obviously can lead to old scores being settled, etc. with the presentation of wonky info. I find the use of semi-anonymity curious. For example, who is BrownHairedGirl who made two changes to Nigel's bio? Her page,, tells us almost nothing about her beyond the broadest outlines of someone protesting her honesty, her age (remembering rotary telephones), and being owned by a dog. I can't find a name, although I'd venture that she is somewhat obsessive — and perhaps a Van Morrison fan. Do you remember anyone like that from your louche days, Nigel? Well, you can contact her if you wish by leaving a message on her "talk page," whatever that is.

However, it was most amusing to see "an out-of-character attack of modesty" of Nigel's part — that was so immediately deflected to become a mention of his inclusion in Who's Who.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:56 pm
by Nigel w

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:58 pm
by Jonathan E.
WAIT! I have to LOL first!

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:02 pm
by Jonathan E.
It is Sir Nigel, isn't it? Noblesse oblige 'n' all that.

Nigel, what happened to your sense of humour. Don't you think it's just funny as hell that you take the opportunity of complaining about Wikipedia to just oh-so-casually mention that you're in Who's Who? I think it's a hoot.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:15 pm
by Jonathan E.
Nigel w wrote: . . . archive this whole turgid topic of my bio, and I thanked you and said yes please, bury it as deep as you can. . . .

Err, just to point out that this whole topic is NOT about Nigel.

Second, I am a firm believer in things not being censored at the request of one member of the forum.

Third, I do not think Wikipedia is particularly accurate, I don't take it very seriously as a source of information, nor do I think it slandered Nigel. I don't care what he did 25 years ago, last week, or yesterday. Well, I care but not in the sense that I have a problem with it.

Fourth, I generally admire Nigel's work even if I occasionally have a laugh about the way he is always sure to mention that he was just having a chat with the Pope yesterday and how Einstein gave him this great advice from the grave only last week.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 8:25 pm
by Nigel w

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:52 am
by Jonathan E.
Can I say something now? Has a decent interval passed? It's getting dark here now and once I turn into a werewolf I have trouble using the keyboard — and sometimes I try to eat the whole damn computer — so, if Nigel will permit, I'd like to say something before it's too late and the sun sets behind the snow-covered trees of this land, the land of my far-off exile from the comforts of Kent.

To garble Shakespeare, "Me thinks he (that's Nigel) doth protest too much."

Seems to me that he likes as much mention of himself as he can get when he's doing the mentioning. But somehow we just have this little tiny wikipedia thing where he does not feel in control or somehow feels that he thinks it's unauthorized information and he goes bloody ballistic. He's quite happy to go on about all the stuff Private Eye said about him being louche and all that — and, I mean, louche is one of my favorite words and I just love being described that way myself — but supposedly there's something wrong with the rather vanilla wikipedia mention, which by the way just happens to be the first return on his name if you google him so whatever the supposed superiority of Who's Who we all know who's reading what source about Nigel the most. And, not to break any oaths of secrecy or anything, the meme is spreading — here you may find almost exactly, if not exactly, the same words on another site, I don't seem to be getting a link — but it's there if you copy and paste. And I really don't care about what it says — it doesn't alter my opinion of Nigel one bit either way, but I like that "nationmaster" domain name! Sounds a bit kinky, doesn't it? But I'm sure it isn't really. It's probably not even louche.

But, I do have a more serious bone to pick here. Surely any journalist worth his salt knows that allowing someone to edit the information about themselves before it's published is absolutely no guarantee of complete or accurate information. In fact, it's a way to produce anodyne drivel. And so for Nigel to write:
The reason Who's Who is so much more accurate than Wikipedia is that every year, the publishers of Who's Who, A&C Black, send you a proof of your entry and invite you to amend and update it. 23 other people can't then just barge in and have their say...
and expect us to keep a straight face is . . . well, it's asking us to believe a lot.

Isn't it?

Anyway, wasn't it Nigel who was advocating the unappreciated pleasures of a "ruck" or something like that around here a week or two ago? I never expected this to rise to the level of a "ruck," but perhaps, with his outbursts of unexpected modesty, it may yet do so. Would that make him happy? I hope so. 'Tis the season to be jolly!

It's getting very dark here, now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MUNCH!

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:40 am
by Jonathan E.
Mmmmmm, tasty!

Sorry for speaking out of turn.

Bad werewolf!