User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 19

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hot topic
Alas, only a redirect for shellsuit, not even its own article - but a pretty high flammability index, I would think. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've changed the redirect to an article that actually mentions the term.  I'll say no more about "tearaway pants".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, now that is funny. The main reason that a certain Knight Bachelor favoured such elasticated attire, allegedly. And shell suits have not even been claimable as BBC expenses since 1972, apparently! At least a some good has come of all this - a much healthier redirect. Yay. Humbled. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Reckon you could don one of Jim's shellsuits and photograph the George Hotel, Chepstow interior?♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War
Hi how are you?

Thanks for your help and suggestions on the Hundred Years' War, I've referred the article to the copyeditors!

Ref previous item - stayed at the George in Chepstow many years ago, surprised it's still in business!!

Rgds Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine, thanks. And thanks for not taking my suggestion personally!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you take things personally don't edit on wikipedia!! However I do think that the Hundred Years War could do with project team, as you know my interest is more the Anglo Saxon period, so count me out! I have helped clean up the main Hundred Years War article as it was in a bad way. But there are a lot of related articles battles etc. that are factually inaccurate and totally bereft of citations. So if you know of anyone who would like to run a project team ..... rgds Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Saville
I was commenting a number of interlinks, to temporarily remove associations between the target indvidual (the subject of recent negative media attention) and others, unrelated to that negative media attention. The commenting is temporary, and the links can be re-instated if desired. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not an explanation. Where is the policy basis for your actions?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The concern was WP:BLP related, given the nature of the media attention., but if you don't think the commenting has a policy basis, I am quite prepared to re-instate them. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems unnecessary to me. If there is no policy basis, it shouldn't have been done.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it comes as a shock that I occasionally write for The Telegraph. Do you think this represents a WP:COI? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh?? Sorry, you've lost me completely...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just check the Telegraph references! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha!. Too obscure for me.  Anyway, I need to get back to working on my director's cut.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just taking my time
Hi Ghmyrtle. I'm hoping people don't think I was a woos not being bold earlier:). I thought it best to tiptoe through editing before until I get the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia. Jonty Monty (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem - happy to help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nick Pollard
Just wanted to say thanks for expanding the article. I was kind of hoping someone would take it on. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. He and I went to the same school (though of course he's much older than me ....?)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Margie Evans
The usual question requiring you to dip into that ickle book of yours. Possibly "Good Thing Queen", "Mistreated Woman" or "Another Blues Day" maybe. She co-wrote "Soon As the Weather Breaks", possibly a minor hit for Bobby Bland (and maybe her too) ? Another long shot - as per the norm. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed - good one! "Good Feeling" (United Artists 246) entered R&B chart 30 June 1973 for 4 weeks, reaching #55 R&B,; and "Good Thing Queen - Part 1" (ICA 002) entered chart 9 July 1977 for 8 weeks, reaching #47 R&B.  Whitburn has some biographical info as well - born Marjorie Ann Johnson, 17 July 1940, Shreveport, Louisiana.  Moved to LA in 1958.  With Billy Ward 1958-64, Ron Marshall 1964-69, Johnny Otis 1969-72.  See also this.   "Soon As the Weather Breaks" reached #76 R&B  for Bobby Bland in 1980.  Will that do?!   Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Brilliant - you know what this means... Meanwhile, thanks again, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Et viola - Margie Evans. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The Crown at Whitebrook
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A stalker comments.....
What do you know about Cathy Jean & the Roomates; Don & Juan; and The Tune Weavers ("Happy, Happy Birthday Baby") ? Apart from the fact that none of the acts have an article here, that is. Surely a bit more your scene than mine. They cropped up in this 15 (yes, fifteen) CD compilation Oldies But Goodies: Legendary Hits.

I thought you might be vaguely interested.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Busy for a few days, but will look into them!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent - I hoped that they might arouse an interest from you. Apart from anything else, I do not want to lose you here.  Cheers - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to comment along the lines of, "As Muddy Waters said....", but then realised it should be "As Preston Foster said....." Who??  Over to you?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Even I have drawn a blank on this one. All I could really find is     - which are usually more to do with the song than Mr. Foster.  He must be quite comfortably off (assuming he is still alive). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh well.... There's a little more about him here - "one of the shyest human beings I've ever met" - but I admit you'd be hard pushed to write much about him.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Back to those without an article - sorry, I can not remember how to do those pointy connecting lines thing - how about The Jaguars and The Shields ? Whilst I remember, well done on Cathy Jean and the Roommates. Regards, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pah!. I've made a redirect.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I hope it did not take you long to find it. I do notice that said article is not referenced and looks a little weedy.  Perhaps you might spruce it up a bit ?  Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, but I'm looking at the Tune Weavers now. If my internet connection keeps behaving itself, and if my son doesn't commandeer the PC over half term, you should see something shortly(ish).  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You're a good 'un. I'm a dab hand at finding work for others to do - just ask my wife ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the hitless Jaguars - the Shields look like a possibility though. See George Motola.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I must stop trying to sell you dead pups. On the subject of George Motola (another unreferenced article), I notice AMG also has him listed as George Matola - although it fights shy of having a proper biography of him under any variant.  I presume you have it on your 'to do' list. Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff vandal:	User talk:131.251.253.127‎‎
Please note that I have issued a level 2 warning, adjusted to take into account the revert that you made before mine. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 15:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Half term has arrived! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha! That had escaped me ... poor weather too.  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones / The Welsh Buzzard 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile
Could you tell me why you reverted the edit I made surrounding the auction of Jimmy Saviles possesions? I cited a ref and the information is pertinent to the article. If you smoked - I doubt that 3 empty packs of your smokes would sell for £25 after your death. This article is about Jimmy Savile and his life and death. That is why there is another article for the abuse allegations. I am going to put the info back in as it is relevent to the artcle.Markdarrly (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The material is not interesting or important; your text was poorly written and ungrammatical; and it referred unnecessarily to a commercial business - oh, and the reference you added did not link to anything relevant. Enough?  The main point is that we should not add information just because it exists.  The details you added were and are trivial - and you omitted the most interesting thing about the auction, which was that all its proceeds went to charity, a point that I added.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that my addition did not come up to your standards but thats what happens when anybody is able to make edits. I agree that info should not be included just because it exists, but the info that I added was notable. If the info was not notable, why did you just revert it back to its original status and not remove the fact that his car sold and it had the reg no etc, all I have done is expand the section to include the fact that people were willing to pay for the guys empty cigar boxes, and that is notable because it shows the degree in which he was held at the time. I did leave a cited ref for the auction company so I dont know why you think that the ref was not relevent. I did omit the bit about the charity but Its now included, as is the fact that the hall in which the auction was held in has now been renamed. Markdarrly (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The citation was simply a link to the auctioneer's website home page - it gave no information at all about the sale itself, and in any case was to a commercial site not a reliable source. My only comment about the cigar boxes is that the information is utterly trivial - it's not something an encyclopedia should cover.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not trivial to say that a dead person could command a price of £25 for empty packets, it goes towards his standing - how many other people could get paid for rubbish? The link was to the auctioneers website and is absolutley a reliable source. Markdarrly (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only is it most definitely not a reliable source, in the sense demanded by Wikipedia, it gives no information, just a link to their main page, and is not formatted in the way references should be formatted. Anyway, all the information necessary is in the much better and independent BBC article (and, if you don't like the BBC, I'm sure that other press reports can be found).  By the way, please try to check the spelling and grammar of your text - this is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Without being aware of this discussion I edited that section anyway. The non-ref of the auctioneer's website has been replaced by one from Mail Online (best I could find at short notice). I've fixed the grammar issues with the latter hall renaming section and added another ref, again replacing the non-ref from the auction house which I am highly doubtful would have covered this anyway. Having seen the earlier version I would be quite happy to revert to that for the auction section, with my ref (or another independent ref) appended. Will post this comment both here and on the article talk page for ease of reply. da nn o _ u k 20:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Give me a shout when you would like salt and vinegar (is that spellings correct enuf for yu?) for that chip on your shoulder. And before you start quoting this and that to me, dont attack me for spelling and grammar. All you want to do is add stuff about the allegations, well make the additions on the other article that is for the abuse allegations.Markdarrly (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusing people of attacking on wikipedia is quite a serious allegation. The only thing tantamount to an attack that I can see here is your comment about someone having a "chip on their shoulder". Being informed that you have made spelling and/or grammar mistakes is not an attack, it's a factual statement. da nn o _ u k  20:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please consider different viewpionts.
Dear Ghmyrtle,

I will back off of the public comments on this topic here for awhile. But I ask you to give my points a private consideration. I don't expect things to change any time soon, but, with all due respect, I appeal to you, as a Master Editor, to please do some reseach and reflection about the things I have expressed in my posts, (in your own time, over a sufficiant period of time) and try to see the possibility that my points may be valid and necessary.

I don't know if punk rock is a style you listen to (you must, if you are involved with this article), but I know that IllaZilla is someone who does, based on what he has written. Perhaps, both of you could make this a study project (along with some other top editors). You will find it a most enjoyable experience. I assure you.

Yours Truly,Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Here is a short list of songs to consider (some I have mentioned, some I have not), but you can access many more on Youtube. Please take time to listen. Share these and others with IllaZilla and other editors:

1) "It's a Cryin Shame," The Gentlemen (Vanden, 1966); also: rehearsl verison (1966) 2) "Destination Lonely," the Huns (1966) 3) "We're Pretty Quick," The Chob (1967) 4) "1523 Blair," The Outcasts (rec. 1966, re. 1967) 5) "Project Blue," The Banshees (Dunwich, 1966) 6) "I'm Movin' On," Evil (1966) 7) "From a Curbstone," Evil (1966) 8) "She's Been Travelin' Round the World," The Seeds of Time (1966) 9) "And She Said Yes," The Painted Ship (1966) 10)"The World Ain't Round, It's Square," The Savages (1966)  11) "Look in Your Mirror," The Merlynn Tree (1966) 12)"The Courtship of Rapunzel," The Bruthers (1966)  13) "Circuit Breaker," the Pastels (1965)  14)"Voices Green and Purple," the Bees (1966)  15)"I'm a Nothing," by The Magic Plants (1966)  16)"On Tour," by The Chancellors (1966)  17)"It's Gonna Take Awile," The Morticans  18)Watch: Sylvania TV Commercial Rock 1966  ...(and many more) Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

what are you doing
reverting my edit? μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry - not intended, and didn't even know I'd made that edit - editing on laptop with oversensitive pad - apologies!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't think a Welshman could be so annoyed by King Arthur! I have done weird things like that myself, thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

please restore my improvements to heading of garage rock section
Dear Ghmyrtle:

I implore you to please restore the improvements I made to the heading of "Garage Rock." I went into detail about why I made these changes in a thread that somebody else had started ("Not enough detail") in the Garage Rock talk section. This individual and others complained that the article is too brief for a phenominon of the degree of size, scope, and historical importance of garage rock. We are dealing with the largest popular grass-roots rock movement in histrory, at the time of the largest youth generation' coming of age, during the apex of the golden era of rock, yet the subject is being treated as something small. Please read the comments by myself and others in that section. I pointed out that a good way to improve the article would be to have a better and more richly-worded heading. The heading, as it stands, is almost anemic. Let me explain (once again) the rationale of my changes:

I made necessary additions to the heading of the Garage Rock article, which better serve the proportions of the genre which the article addresses. I added mention of the "numerous bands," because this is not only factual, but essential to unerstanding the phenominon of garage rock craze that swept the country (and other countries) during this period. I added the reference to "other countries" (in parenthesis), because the phenominon, though most prevelent in North America, also took place in other countries, such as Sweden, Denmark, Itlay, Peru, Japan, etc., as well as having a close relationship with many bands in the UK (though these are more commonly referred to as "British Invasion," and/or "Freakbeat, however thare are certain bands, such as The Troggs or The Renegades that have been commonly referred to as "garage"). Some of the bands in the Wiki list of garage bands come form other countries--i.e. the ones who have been characterized as "garage."  I added mention that garage rock "along with the British Invasion and folk rock, helped define the guitar rock sound of the mid-60s," because this is, not only true, but also essential to our understanding of it.  I added "early half" to the description about the critics in the 70s, beacuse, without it, the statement is confusing. This addition makes the statement, not only more precise, factually speaking, but more clear. I put the phrase "has become" in the last sentence, because it is more factual. The genre has not always been predominantly referred to as "garage rock." In the early to mid seventies it was more commonly referred to as "punk rock," only sometimes as "garage..." The term "garage band" was popularly used for quite some time, but has now been shifted, in the public mind, to refer to a brand of software (it seems that every word used to describe garage rock ends up getting taken by someone else!). I made some other slight changes in wording, as to make smoother, clearer transitions, but I tried to keep as much of the earlier text as possible. I have tried to respect the contributions of earler editors. My changes and additions are merely refinements and improvements, and do not constitute an overhaul. However, there remains a pressing need for greater expansion of other sections of the article, as well as possible additions of new sections, considering the vastness and importance of this topic.

I ask you to please retore the improvements I made. They have made the article stronger, more informantive, more factual, and more appealing. I think our concern should be what is best for the article. I worked very hard on crafting out these improvements, and I cannot understand why they have been taken away. I genuinely tried to avoid some of the mistakes of some of my prior changes, and I was almost certain that you would back me up this time around. I wish that you would accept me as a legitimate editor (I do not want to be a nuisance or intruder). I am a very thoughtful person. I am trying to be a good editor and do things in a responsible way. The subject of garage rock is something I have quite a bit of knowledge on and deep interest in. I wish that you would accept me as an editor who wants to work with you to improve this article. It would better serve the needs of the article as well as its readers. I realize that I have pressed a lot of issues lately, but only when for the best. I do appreciate that you have made some supportive decisions in favor of my ideas in the past, so I am indeed grateful. Just give me a chance to help build a better article for "garage rock." Please see me as a construcive partner in that endevor.

Sincerly, Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dale Ward
Does this name mean anything to you ? He had a No.25 hit in February 1964 on the Billboard Hot 100 with "A Letter From Sherry", which according to my source was a million seller. Equally, according to my book he "joined the trend of pop stars gone country in 1971". Thought you might fancy a challenge.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Vapid", eh? Just what I like...  (especially when I'm "drunk or on drugs" - see below)  ;-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, old bean. I seem to be able to try to sell you dead pups at a flick of the wrist. If you are ever capable of freeing yourself from your obviously hopeless, and perhaps terminal addictions, then maybe Graham Bonney  with his million seller, "Supergirl" is a Betty Ford Center option.


 * Plus, if it were me, I'd tell him what to do with his two bells.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good one. Ein britischer Schlagersänger, no less. I think I'd always vaguely mixed him up with Graham Bonnet.  I'll give it some thought...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

BBC Consensus section
Sorry, I had to delete your comments as they were irrelevant to a call for consensus on the addition of the BBC child abuse/Newsnight/Saville fiasco. A consensus section is where you state whether you are for or against content being added not go off on one. If you read the talk history you will find an editor suddenly appeared and deleted the criticisms/child abuse section against best wiki practice. The consensus section is to affirm whether editors agree or disagree in this case to content addition. Twobells (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not "have to delete my comments". Deleting other editors' comments on an article talk page is contrary to WP:TPO.  Ghmyrtle (talk)
 * Let me try again, a consensus section is where the editor votes for or against, I am quite happy that you comment, in fact it is quite clear you are for addition of the recent events so why not just follow best practice and put either for or against in bold at the start? I just don't understand the problem. Twobells (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is not up to you, an individual editor, to decide the process of developing consensus. You can suggest a way forward, but you can't decide to instigate a !vote yourself.  Well, you can try, but others will object.  I don't have a view on your suggestion, because there was no need for you to have made the suggestion in the way you did.  You basically seem to be in a great rush to add material which needs to be considered collectively, over time, taking into account the reliable sources which will emerge in due course, and matters such as due weight and balance.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point I have to ask are you drunk or on drugs? You seem to be suggesting patterns of behaviour to other people that are evidently your own. Why would anyone object to a consensus section where they can offer up their opinion? I am in absolutely no rush to include content, the lay out so far is just place holder for future work. We are nowhere near moving forward until consensus and the only way we will obtain consensus is by laying out our opinions in a consensus section, a section which you have just blundered into. Twobells (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. (Emperor (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC))

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is probably just me, but ....
What the heck has happened to the 'Difference between revisions' facility ? It may be just my browser (whatever that is), or my eyes, or something else, but I am struggling to tell what/how/in which way the edit has actually changed anything. Rather like the Police and Crime Commissioner fiasco, did we vote for this ?? Ohhh.... I must be getting old. (And while you are about it, why are our Police these days all young kids about 5 foot 4 inches tall ?)

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

North Wales child abuse scandal
I've reverted your edits because this source - http://www.bushywood.com/alison_taylor_whistleblower.htm - appears to be a self-published blog, which is essentially unreliable. In an article of such contentiousness and importance, we must use reliable sources, not blogs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit as the same allegations are in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9657836/Waterhouse-Inquiry-recommendations-and-conclusions.html In reverting your edit I have second ref'd them Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but you need to remove the blog refs first. We can then check to see if the same information is contained in the other sources.  Waterhouse is of course a primary source for much of this, and should equally not be used.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, but I don't see the need to remove the blog if we have other supporting refs. For isntance, the Pride of Britain ref gives an equal picture. personally, this whole case and our article is frankly scary - the more you dig into it, the more that you realise that the evidence is quite public and well reported - see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/at-last-alison-taylor-tells-how-she-exposed-years-of-child-abuse-1234884.html which I have added to the Taylor section. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll move that comment to the article talk page and respond to it there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. I've taken this step really as a precaution - I'm mainly concerned that no-one gets into any legal difficulties over this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the words "Over Escalation" ever come into your head? Why do you think I raised in on the articles talk page? Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be editing in a good deal of haste - major edits, with lots of typos and so forth - and don't seem to be especially willing to take other people's concerns into account. Given the legal threats that are around at the moment, I thought it would be helpful to have some extra eyes on the article.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Could have asked me first, before acting? Its not that I have been here for 5mins. You now seem to be post-haste justifying your actions - have you read WP:AGF recently? Persoally, disapointing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that you were acting in good faith - but also that we could make good use of "the intervention of administrators and experienced editors" on that particular page - as I said, given the possible legal issues, and the need to tread carefully on BLP matters. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Roymilton.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Roymilton.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Savile
The revert on Savile Scandal is not helpful Newsnight investigation comes at end of 2011 before Exposure in Timeline although Pollard stuff obviously can come later. Ellizzia (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not a simple timeline - it tells a story. The information about the Newsnight investigation did not become known until after the ITV documentary, and so it is dealt with in the text at that point.  It can obviously be written in different ways, but it wasn't helpful for you to duplicate information already clearly set out in the article.  If you want to pursue this, the place to do it is at the article talk page, not here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not envy the rather thankless role you have a taken up with those articles. The whole subject continues to be quite a mine-field, not to say a hot potato and a pig in a poke. Your diplomacy and tact is admirable; I'm sure your patience must be sorely tested at times. I'll lavish more praise, of course, when I can dream up a few more lame metaphors to mix. But in the meantime, you deserve some appreciation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I might have to withdraw now that the BBC DG is my old school buddy (who, conspiracy theorists please note, I've had no contact with for 40+ years.....) .  True.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Very strange, though, that no-one has addly anything to the Savile articles today, after the documentary last night. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed that. What was it like? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Same old stuff really... plus Edwina Currie. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it's on ITV I-player. It just gets worse, doesn't it. But the programme does seem to have some sensible analysis of how he did what he did. His personal secretary, Janet Cope, was quite a find. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could just resign after 54 days, with a huge payoff and a tasty pension pot. Makes one think, doesn't it... Gold coffin, anyone? Or golden rope, maybe. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now then, now then.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * guys and gels, guys and gels.... (well, mostly gels, in fact) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My daughter told me that, at the club she went to on Halloween where everyone was dressed in horror costumes, someone who turned up dressed as Savile was refused entry!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strewth, that's one tough party to crack. "Now my Monster Mash is the hit of the land... "? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Yewtree
Was it really necessary to expand the tabloid bloat to yet another article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "tabloid bloat", so, yes. Having a separate article on the police investigation - "... a major criminal investigation.... a watershed moment for child abuse investigations... a landmark investigation", and clearly notable in its own right - allows the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal article to be structured more carefully over time, rather than continuing to allow the little details (of who's been arrested, and who has said what) to bloat the overarching article.  I'd be happy to have many of the details of the police investigation - and some of the individual allegations, come to that - removed from the scandal article.  It's a question of allowing and enabling better organisation of the material over time, through having a proper structure, rather than promulgating "bloat" - quite the opposite of that in fact.   You can raise it at the article talk page by all means, but it wasn't only me at the scandal article talk page who thought that a separate article would be helpful.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the arrest of other notable individuals make a separate article necessary. It seems unlikely that police will turn away complainants simply because they had no connection with Savile. And so the investigation may become very wide indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * there is only 2 encyclopedic articles: 1) Jimmy Savile (which gets the trimmed down results of the final investigations), and then 2) the wider sex scandal investigation/Yewtree. but until the the dust settles and the scandal mongers insist on incorporating every trivial bit that pops up during the 24/ news cycles - bloat away! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * wikt:TIMTOWTDI. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Numptiness
Do you feel any great passion to rejoin the discussion at Talk:West_Country? --Bob Re-born (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes more sense to me either to change the text to make clear that they are included in one definition or other of the West Country - or simply take the list out. Bournemouth is certainly right on the outer limit of any area that could be called "West Country".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is included in one definition, which it clearly is, then it is included in the main list, but I take your point about clarifying what the list actually is i.e. the sum of all definitions. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are several good reasons for taking the list out, and no very strong reasons for retaining it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The only "numptiness" occurring here is from your end, Bob. Everything I have seen of you shows that you are a disruptive editor who obstinately refuses to co-operate with those he disagrees with on any level, and the fact that you would even question talking about the dispute that you have single-handedly caused shows a great degree of arrogance. If you have no desire to rejoin the discussion that you caused in the first place over a year ago, then you have no right to any say in the matter.

Bournemouth is not included in any defintion of the West Country. That much is irrefutably clear, as I have shown multiple times. Therefore, it should not be included in any incarnation of the main list, which itself should not be included at all. A sum of all definitions is bad enough as such a thing tends to include places that aren't really in the West Country but are mistakenly considered to be so by a handful of ignorant people, for example Gloucester. Bournemouth, however, is not included in the West Country by any definition, including the one you have been clinging to, and so has no place in the article however much you intend to stretch the boundaries of reason. Go and read the talk page Bob Re-born, I know doing such a thing is not your strong point but it is an absolute must if you wish to remain relevant in this dispute.

There is no good reason for having Bournemouth in the article, and as things stand, it shall be removed once the lock is finished.

And sorry about the message Ghmyrtle, but an edit such as his warranted a reply. VoiceOfReason922 (talk) 21:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Award
Thanks! :) BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Lefty Dizz
Eeeh... you are never too old to learn something new. Watching the box this evening (BBC Four) and Muddy Waters and The Rolling Stones were there videoed and recorded in 1981. Good stuff, and blow me down there is a guitarist amongst the throng whom I did not recognise... it was Lefty Dizz ! His newish Wiki article was one of mine from just a couple of months ago. Turns out that Live at the Checkerboard Lounge, Chicago 1981 was only released in July this year.

Maybe I should concentrate on being glued to the TV, and give reflinks a miss - it seems to attract as much grief as plaudits. Mind you, as it 'appens, you seem to be in the same boat.

Still, I'm the hoochie coochie man, Everybody knows I'm him. Saluté,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I missed that - far too late for me!! Maybe I'll put it on my Christmas stocking wish list....  or see if I can find it on iPlayer.  Was it good?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it was good. A bit shambolic at times as it was basically an extended jam session on a stage far too small for all of them.  But with Ronnie Wood, Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy and Lefty Dizz (whom I had never seen before) etc., on display at various times it was full of talent, obvious fun and some fine musicianship.  I really enjoyed it.  I suspect the visual spectacle might be better than the recording alone.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

John Hefin
Hello! I nominated the John Hefin article for DYK. Feel free to suggest an alternate hook. Take care, Moswento talky 14:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for telling me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat  (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for John Hefin
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We could make link to Wiki article:" List of garage rock and psychedelic rock compilation albums" (in "Garage Rock" article)
I found a great Wiki article that gives helpful information about garage and psychedlic LP and CD compilations ("List of Garage and Psychedelic Compilation Albums"). Perhaps you could help me create a link to it in the "Garage Rock" article. I also put some comments in the talk section of that article (I recommended some slight changes in the "Overview" section to make it sound more objective and encyclopedic--you might help me with this, too). Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ellizzia
Autobiog not relevant just surprised after Savile thing she didn't have a page. Thanks for comments. I have referenced what I can. I realise that University of Lancashire came from LinkedIn which is not a proper Wiki source so I have removed it. On Savile do you think Mark Williams Thomas should have a Wiki page? Ellizzia (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Keith Kelly
Does this name mean anything to you ? AMG has this and he had two UK hit singles in 1960 with "Tease Me (Must You Always)" and "Listen Little Girl". Also, according to the Guinness Book of Hit Thingamies, he was born Michael Pailthorpe. He is almost listed on Wikipedia at Keith Kelly. Knowing your penchant for George Martin related stuff, I though he might interest you. If not, there's no problem. Pass him back to me and I'll maybe have a go before Santa arrives. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Well, normally I'd be interested in taking him on, even if only for a stub, but I'm always a bit reluctant if I know nothing about his afterlife, as it were. He seems to have disappeared from the world of reliable sources after the mid 60s (unlike Graham Bonney, for instance, who obviously found a profitable niche market in Germany).   Whatever happened to Keith Kelly?  Drugs and early death? - doubt it.   Running a low key pub in Selby? - more likely, but who knows?  Someone does, but will we ever find out?  Any clues as to what happened to him?  Not a bad singer though - .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: By the way, well done on Fairview Studios. I just came across this - don't know whether you've seen it, but may be some snippets worth including (such as an obscure and indirect Michael Jackson connection, perhaps!)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, kind sir. I did not include too much from said article.  Mike Bloom's Hammer were rather obscure, and Rod Temperton's own article seems to have it well covered.  Did I not mention to you before that I recorded at Fairview Studios ?!? Or, that my wife's band were also recorded by Keith Herd ?  There is plenty you do not know about me - errr, probably a good thing.  I'll have a dig around regarding Keith Kelly - frankly without his connection to Keith Herd, I'd have never heard of him.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is this him ? Mmmmm... Born 15 December 1937 so that means he is now almost 75 - if he is still alive (although that seems almost certain).  It is easy to forget the passage of time.  Your flippant suggestion regarding him running a pub seemed almost plausible, but he's in his mid seventies.  Ho, hum... over to you, but do not lose any sleep over this one. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Too young, I think. Maybe he's like one of those bluesmen who just vanished until some young fan rediscovered them sitting on their porch forty years later.  Will early 60s Britpop ever become hip and trendy like that?  Doubt it somehow.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

...all in the best possible taste, darling...
Did someone leave the door open over at Kenny's page? It's begining to feel stangely chilly over there.. ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Brazilian, surely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, maybe. But that's not what ip geolocate suggests! Martinevans123 (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pytheas
Interested in helping get this article back into shape? See Talk:Pytheas. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you mean me? It's not that I have no interest in the subject, but I certainly lack any specialist knowledge or sources, and it looks to me to be a very long way outside my comfort zone.  I don't mean to be discouraging, but in this case I don't think I'm the man for the job.  Sorry!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I saw you at Talk:Britain (placename) and this is vaguely related, certainly the same editor involved. Thanks anyway. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah - OK. Frankly, I'd forgotten all about that little spat.  I think my concerns were simply that the other editor was adding material that was nothing to do with the placename itself - the subject of the article - whether or not it was actually right or wrong in itself.  Although it's an area that I'm quite interested in, a lot of the linguistic arguments in particular are outside my area of knowledge - so, I'll keep it on watch, and monitor how it goes.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Fuller
Could I prevail on your good nature again, and ask if you would take a peek in your little R&B book for me. When you have the time - no rush. I am hoping one of the following may have made the chart. "All Night Long", "(The) Haunted House" (later covered by Jumpin' Gene Simmons amongst others), "Cry Won't Make Me Stay" or "Johnny Ace's Last Letter". Otherwise, Fuller's notability looks a little thin, without a hit to show for his efforts. Mucho thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, no hits at all I'm afraid. Sounds notable though.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes he does, doesn't he. Blow it, sod the consequences, I think I'll have a go at him.  Thanks again - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Et voilà - Johnny Fuller. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

For those winter evenings
Just in case your soul music 'to do list' is empty, are the following notable enough ? Christine Kittrell ; Bobby Wade ; and the King Pins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek R Bullamore (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 December 2012‎
 * Possibly. I'm currently "groovin'" (as those young hep cats say) to this - another possibility?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell, you know how to live ! Keep on getting it down, man. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot to ask. Does Catfish Keith out trump Ironing Board Sam ?! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(.. in lieu of one of many unspeakable current "Jimmy and Gary" jokes ...)
One of Pope Benedict's aides hears that the Holy Father has now enthusiatically embraced the new technology and is merrily Tweeting away and buying all his crimbo prezzies on eBay and Amazon. Worried about this unprecedented move towards modernity, the aide hurriedly confronts him, "Your Holiness, aren't you worried about the risks of identity theft?" To which the Pope calmly replies, "Not at all. I do have Pay-pal infallibility, you know!" (My sincere apologies for having to bring this joke to your attention... ) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ... thought you might also enjoy this gem of an audio-visual pairing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fairbank
Good work on rejigging Operation Fairbank, am perplexed at lack of mainstream coverage. Once bitten... 3k views! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess people are tired of reading about old abuse scandals, and so the media have come to think that such stories will not attract readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Lee Lawrence
Does this name mean anything to you ? Two sizable UK chart hits with covers of "Suddenly There's a Valley" and "Crying in the Chapel". The Allmusic article makes interesting reading, eg. born Leon Siroto; dead at the age of 40. I must admit I do not know the name at all. Over to you ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * They don't make 'em like that any more, thank heavens. Interesting though - when I get the chance to take a break between shopping and wrapping, I'll see what I can do - if you don't get in first, of course.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's definitely all yours. It might take me until the New Year to recover from "It's Rock 'n' Roll opera, where the long hairs used to be" ??? Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting poster! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1951 - blimey, before I was born. It's a sobering thought that probably everybody on that billing is now dead.  Plus, whatever became of Morecambe & Wise ?!  Of course, variety shows have long since died a death too - except once a year, when the Royal Variety Show pops up to bizarrely confound the passage of time. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lee Lawrence - well done ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Very stubby I'm afraid - not much info out there (and some of that's from not very reliable sources). Dismally fails to match your high standards!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Away with you ! Half of mine are nothing more than stubs. I just 'pad them out' with an infobox and as copious a discography as I can possibly muster.  I know only too well that these long gone singers/bands can be a devil to find half decent references for.  For all its faults, thank goodness for Allmusic.  Cheers - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * So there I am earlier this evening, in the pub putting the world to rights with a dear old friend of mine, who I've known since we were both 14. The usual Christmas compilation playing merrily along to itself in the background, until my mate sparks up - "Oh, I know that one".  I turned my only half decent ear towards a speaker and it's only Gary Glitter's "Another Rock n' Roll Christmas".  I pointed out earlier in this post that it might take me to until the New Year until I recover from "It's Rock 'n' Roll opera, where the long hairs used to be".  I am doomed until at least Easter 2013 now.  Sometimes you've just got to laugh.  Best wishes to you and yours for the Festive Thingy - at least we've missed being vaporised by the Mayans. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely not - | it's "obsolete", isn't it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Fairbank
hiya - i'm going to reinstate some of my changes to the operation fairbank page.... i think they contain useful detail. i will be mindful of your comments about duplication.

ta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.166.171 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't. They added very little other than formatting errors, and material from unreliable sources which will continue to be reverted. When material is published in reliable sources (as it was in The Independent today), it can be reported here - not before that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it might have been another glitch. Had one where the page history didn't show my revert, but it was gone. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate your points about duplication and this morning I was more careful to avoid that but - for god's sake - David Hencke of Exaro is not an unreliable source - he won the press gazette award for journalist of the year this month. He's been a Guardian journalist for more than 30 years. He is a friend of Tom Watson and he helped the police by accompanying the source to a meeting. Have you even read his stories? please don't undo my edits again until you have found out who he is and what he is saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1913 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is an unreliable source in Wikipedia terms - please read WP:RS, as well as the advice I've received and posted on the article talk page. Whether what he writes is true or not is completely irrelevant here - what Wikipedia reports is what has been already published in reliable secondary sources - not what someone "knows", even if (or indeed especially if - see WP:COI) he is a friend of someone mentioned in the article.  In any case, what you added to the article this morning - the name of the police officer, for instance - is not supported by the source you gave.  Please acquaint yourself with the basic guidelines on how to edit Wikipedia in an appropriate way.  I'm not issuing threats, but you should also read WP:3RR, and not edit war.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi - I really don't want to 'edit war'. let's go through this point by point and come to a concensus. My reliable secondary source for the name of the detective leading the operation is about 2 thirds of the way down this article: http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4764/police-investigate-top-tories-over-child-abuse-at-guest-house My reliable second source for the police having failed to pursue the case twice before is here: http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4765/police-twice-failed-to-probe-paedophile-ring-at-guest-house best wishes, EmmaEmma1913 (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to make this point? Exaro news is not a reliable source.  When its claims are reported in, say, The Independent, we can and should report them here - but not before then.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Your claims seem to be based on the full version of the article, which of course is not available to readers without a subscription - that is, almost all of them - and in my view should not be considered at all as a source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. Our differences seem to be based around whether or not Exaro counts as a reliable source. The problem I have is that I have read the guidelines and I can't see why you think it isn't. It's not a self-published blog. It's a medium sized news organisation with staff and editors. Plus its articles can be accessed for free (for a week at least) - it just requires registration. And I note that wikipedia accepts articles in the Financial Times and the Times as sources (which are also require registration.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1913 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Emma, a note on the RS noticeboard where Exaro was discussed said "Best to wait for the stories to be picked up by other media", and I agree with that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ive studied sociology and while doing so, interviewed people within all the communities I edited on wiki
Thet all said to me the figures that I put up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBCjj11 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 December 2012‎ Replied to you on my page.
 * How do I add a citation needed? I'll put one up with it and find a way to publish my findings as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BBCjj11 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 18 December 2012‎ BBCjj11
 * Ok yes I understand but there's figures and information on here that are worded as if they are definite just because they have a source which may have money behind them, a bias, a agenda, it's clearly misleading while my our study is not allowed to be shown at all because it hasn't been officially published. 11:24, 18 December 2012‎ BBCjj11

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell
I am Welsh and proud to be Welsh, I am NOT British. I think it is important to state on Wikipedia that a person is Welsh when they are born in Wales to raise world-wide awareness of the many people born in Wales because too many people around the world see British as English and English as British.

78.147.228.222 (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal views are of no relevance to building an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * When you made your edit you made the comment 'nope, it ain't that simple' please expand this. Also, it is a fact that he was born in Wales (his place of birth is a reliable source) so what is wrong with stating he is Welsh? 78.147.228.222 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to have this discussion on the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * But, as a PS, why have you not changed David Lloyd George's article, to state that he was English - born in Manchester? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!
  Gareth Griffith-Jones  – The Welsh  Buzzard  – is wishing you the season's greetings. Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus, or the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 15:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A good version of a favourite of mine. Thanks Guy for this and your guidance over the past 14 months –&#32;

Nadolig hapus!!
 Martinevans123Santas Grotto wishes you and yours "Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace ....

BBC Sex Abuse cases
I am happy to act as a moderator for changes, but am not sure that I want to do all the editing. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Smoovedogg and Little Richard
Apparently I've been accused of vandalizing Little Richard's introduction summary on his page. I was the one that had put the transition sentence back in 2009 and wanted it changed. But apparently I'm vandalizing because according to Smoovedogg (who has no page by the way), I'm vandalizing the page. Maybe you can sort this article out. I'm through. If they want to make the article a fan page, let them. lol BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll check it out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Glitter
Continually removing material without explanation constitutes vandalism. The fact you feel entitled to an apology says a lot about your agenda here. أنا أحبك (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given a full explanation at Talk:Another Rock n' Roll Christmas, and asked you to respond there. I'm waiting for you to do so.  You appear still to misunderstand the meaning of the word "vandalism".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm glad that you retained my wording, "...but is now rarely heard publicly following the singer's convictions on child pornography and abuse charges." With that wording retained, the inclusion of the word "obsolete" is completely unnecessary.  Worse, it adds ambiguity to the article because, whether you like it or not, the wording "..obsolete Christmas record..." can be read in two different ways.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric Francis (architect)
No problem at all. I'm trying to get a few articles on Monmouthsire houses done and was only asking Dr. B today if you might have pictures of Wyndcliffe, Mounton and Wyelands. Sadly, I don't get down to Monmouth much these days or I'd mount an expedition myself. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid I don't. They are all somewhat private and secluded - not easy to get photos without permission, but I'll bear it in mind.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

British songwriters
With nothing better to do over the Festive Period (ha ha), I helplessly stumbled across the article for Les Reed. I have 'improved' the piece more than a trifle (with an overload of sherry and a cherry on top) but, in my trawling about, discovered that those of a similar ilk are equally poorly described. The usual lack of content and shortage of references sadly abound. I thought, hang on a minute, these bods for better or for worse, wrote part of the soundtrack for the UK's late 1960s and early 1970s generation of pop fantastic people.

Therefore, in addition to Mr. Reed, I proffer Don Black, Gordon Mills, Barry Mason, Geoff Stephens, Roger Cook, Mitch Murray, Tony Macaulay and Roger Greenaway. Possibly not your 'scene' exactly, nor mine if I am perfectly honest, but I thought I would push it your way for an initial thought or two, before widening my scope to ....

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I'm always keen to recognise songwriters and producers, who still tend to be ignored here a little.  Will look into it some more when time allows.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Splendid. To bring you up to date, I've had a go at Mitch Murray; in the process I came across his long time song writing partner, Peter Callander, which I've also added a sprig of holly to. (Note my excellent English grammar here, both starting and ending the sentence with 'to'). Another from that era that was also missing from my earlier list is Bill Martin - his article seems heavy on text and light on referencing.  So, I think I'll have a bit of a bash at him next.  From a couple of day's experience, this list may grow like topsy.  No pressure on you at all, by the way - just trying to ensure that we do not fall over each other.  Happy New Calendar Turnover Day, if we do not speak again before the so-called New Year.  I wonder who's on Jools Holland's Hogmanay knees up.  If you remember, last year's programme was a real treat (unlike this year's regular Later series which, to me, has been rather dire).  Smell you later, hipster.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is now an ever growing list at the bottom of my user page of suitable candidates. If you feel like having a go.  Having done some work here and there, I came across Trevor Peacock. "No, no, no, no... yes" etc.  Have a look at his article - it really astonished me.


 * Separately, I enjoyed Bettye LaVette, Petula Clark and Adam Ant on the Hootenanny. Respect for Adam, (vaguely modern parlance, I do try to keep up) who has had a hard time of it in the last decade, for putting himself in the limelight again.  Purely personal choice, but The Hives were magnificent for their sheer energy and stupidity.  Pure rock and roll... rather like Ant (bless him).


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

{{{YGM}} ... and here's a lovely quaint Suffolk village folk band that you're sure to love. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be fair
I was not intending to belabor old polemics, in my latest thread. I was simply proposing a few improvements to the "Garage rock" article (not the "Punk rock" article), a couple of which may have been related to prior discussions, but were not quite identical, and others which were completely unrelated, and I think that you have unfairly treated my words as a monolith, when I was addressing myself to various different issues in that thread. I have not added any new threads to the "Punk rock" talk section in a while (and I wish you would acknowledge that), and I have generally backed away from trying to convince people at that site (and other modern punk sites) of the things I was earlier trying to explain, which I think had validity and truth and needed to be expressed (in several places). Let me also say that I have written threads on other issues such as adding discussion of Link Wray to the garage site, so I do not have one sole preoccupation (other than to try to advance knowledge about the topics of the articles I am addressing). I do not engage in mindless diatribes, and I always try to make factual presentations (even if some of them have been a bit long--I am learning the to be more brief), so I was taken aback by your unkind remarks. I think you should always welcome discussion from other editors--if it is intended to be constructive and is fact-based. But, you have slammed the door on anything I have to offer as an editor. And, I find that to be unfortunate (and disrespectful). What disrespect have I ever shown you? When did I ever treat your concerns as trivial? When have I ever tried to disrupt or demean something constructive you were trying to accomplish?

I think you would want to encourage my efforts to help improve the "Garage rock" sites and let me use my knowledge in that subject area. But, I cannot say your remarks on the "Lists..." site, either, were very kind (at a time I was not engaged in any kind of debate whatsoever). Perhaps the word "blessing" was not well-chosen, but you did recommend that work on the garage sites (see Talk:Ramones), which I have done. I have worked dilligently there as you recommened, and I think that it was disingenuous of you to turn around and disparage me on the "List.." site talk page, when I had complemented you, and was trying to do the right thing.

The changes I proposed in my latest thread are perfectly legitiamte requests. You don't have to agree with them. But, you can be more respectful in your remarks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you should learn to be briefer in yours (WP:TLDR) and not repeat yourself over and over again on different pages as though you think it is likely that different people will take a different view. I do respect your opinions, but by and large they are not relevant and frankly I don't have the time to keep up a dialogue with you.  I know you mean well, but having to either deal with, or pointedly ignore, your singleminded obsession has become quite annoying.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your response. I will try to focus on building up the articles in the ways that are most constructive. I should write a book on the topic you are addressing--but it is not my sole preoccupation.  I wish you well.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to delete this post, I would have no objection (it is not of concern to anyone else, and I feel it has served its purpose and is no longer needed). I ask you to respect my decision to delete the ""Revivals section changes needed..." in the "Talk: Garage Rock" section. I know that is not usually the protocol, but I'm sure you would have no objections in this case.  If that post would be percieved to be redundant, then it is probably wasting space and detracting from other posts, whether mine or anyone else's.  I think the "Link Wray/early influences" post is of higher priority anyway.  Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)