" 

 == Catchphrases == 

 Where are the listed sources for those supposed catchphrases ? There are none listed. I'm going to delete them. 

  
 Just listen to the podcast, watch his TV shows etc. 

 ""Nyum Nyum Nyum"", ""Moon on a stick"" ""...Or is it the businessman in his suit and tie"" ""...Of course they're all *** by the time I've finished with them"" ""Fucking idiot(s)"" ""Bumming!"" are all there to see and thus should be on the page. 
 :As are ""car"", ""shopping"", ""er..."" etc. A catchphrase is not only something associated with the subject, but exists outside the particular fandom of the individual - people who are simply aware of the subject as ""someone off the telly"" should be aware of it, too.    
 ::Surely the 'moon on a stick' stuff fits those criteria. I vaguely remember stuart Lee talking about how people have come up to him in the street shouting about how he wants the moon a stick. This may suggest the catchphrase at least caught on to some extent?    
 Surely 'moon on a stick' was a [Lee and Herring] catchphrase, so should be on their page if anywhere.    

 Would his emergency questions from RHLSTP count as catchphrases, eg. ""have you ever tried to suck your own cock?"" Just a thought.    
 :No.   

 == Andrew Collins edits this article== 
 Careful note should be paid to Herring's page because Andrew Collins admitted on the Collings and Herrin podcast, that he regularly edits this article, and seems to see himself as some kind of unofficial guardian of it, removing stuff that he deems unfit. 

 :Please sign... 
 :Is this why there's an NPOV dispute? Andrew just said he's rmeoving people's idiotic additions like made up catch-phrases. I see no indication that there are NPOV issues, and I think the banner should be removed.    

 Surely any dispute over the neutrality of the article should be based on the actual information that appears on the page, not what people have said outside of it?  I'm sure many pages have people who frequently check up on them and edit them, but that doesn't mean they have NPOV tags on them.  The tag should be removed.   

 Andrew Collins takes information that IS unfit for the article I.E not true and removes it 

 I concur. Surely the NPOV issue should be raised based on the article itself, not any what has been said elsewhere. I think the banner should also be removed.    

 I was in a cafe the other day and I heard Stewart Lee saying he was going to vandalise this article. At least, I think it was him, he was certainly squinting a lot. Is there some way we can prevent this senseless feud from causing more damage?    

 :I'd just like to say that I was in a cafe on the date in question and I did say I was going to vandalise this article. However, by ""this article"" I meant an article of clothing, specifically a scarf I was holding in my hands which I was going to vandalise for an art project. Maybe if you had spent less time mocking me for my squinty eyes and more time looking at my hands, this whole confusing situation wouldn't have occurred. And I'm not Stewart Lee. 

 :PS on the way out of the cafe I bumped into the real Stewart Lee and he said he definitely would not be vandalising the article as he strongly believes in the Wikipedia project and despises vandals. Then he pushed me into a muddy puddle so I don't really know what to think.    

 LOL the Andrew Collins page is locked for editing.  I find that quite funny.     

 Hi can we have a catchphrase section please?  )    01:18, 8 February