User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 26

President Records
Thanks for the encouraging words. As you can see it′s the first article. This was the starting point, I have photos which can be added too. Happy to share whatever. Lee Connolly (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. One point of advice - I think you might want to take a look at WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:SPS.  Reading through what you'd written, some of it looked on the face of it as though it had come from a company press statement, when the emphasis should be on what we can find from completely independent sources.  But, welcome!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of England
Hi, could you please have a look at recent edits on Kingdom of England and its talk page? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! Hadn't noticed it's the same character as at John Prescott.  Need to get him to discuss on the talk pages, at least.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Australian rock" article desperately needs sources and oversight
The Australian rock article needs a lot of help. It covers a lot of breadth, but suffers form a severe lack of sourcing and sloppy writing. There does not appear to be any higher-level oversight on what aims to be a feature article. Due to the wide time period covered, it is going to be a big piece of work--yet there is so much potential for it to become a great article. I am glad to offer my assistance (I just added a well-sourced piece at the beginning of the "Second wave" section and am happy to do more, where I might have the knowledge), however this is going to take the efforts of a lot of people. I know that you probably are busy with a lot of other Wiki projects, but I think that this site needs a master editor, as well as other knowledgeable editors. Two people that would be ideal contributors are you and SabreBD, because of your interest in music and expertise as editors--and, of course, any other editors who would be willing. We could try to seek out experienced Australian editors. I have made a mention in the talk sections of the Wiki Australia and Rock projects. I should also put something in the talk section the Regional music project. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's in a fairly dire state, but it's not something that's going to rise to the top of my "to do" list in the foreseeable future. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I perfectly understand. I notice the improvements you have just made to the article. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to bring up the Australian rock article again, but I need your help on a matter. I strongly feel that there is a lot of completely irrelevant material in the "Second wave" section not about the music and its creators. I have a thread on the talk page of that article addressing this problem (for details, see that thread). Would it be OK if I remove that irrelevant material? Right now the info isn't even sourced. But, it probably soon will be: Shaidar cuebiyar(talk), who responded to one of my clarions on a Wiki project talk page, is doing a fantastic job of supplying sources at a rapid rate. But, soon the irrelevant material may become sourced, which may pose a dilemma: would sourcing inoculate the unnecessary passages from being removed? I wouldn't imagine so, because irrelevant is still irrelevant. What do you think? Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Shaidar cuebiyar indicated that he concurs with me that we should create new articles and then delete the irrelevant stuff afterward (putting links to the new articles a the bottom of the page). I have just created two new articles out of the copyedit from that section.  Shaidar cuebiyar has indicated that he will try to find sourcing for that material, even in light of its eventual deletion (and that is a really kind thing to do).  He is from Australia and has a lot of sources.  Obviously, the new articles will need some polishing up.  I'm guessing we're on the right track.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Nokutela Dube
Gatoclass (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I thought they'd stopped minting these...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

And another barnstar

 * Thank you - though I do very little there really, and certainly my efforts don't stand comparison with yours. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Heinz Fischer
Heinz Fischer is an agnostic. You need to stop trolling on these articles. That is his religious background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialistDemocrat100 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. That's why it said: Religion: none (agnostic).  That's fine.  The problem is that you are changing it to Religion: Agnosticism.  But agnosticism is not a religion.  It implies the absence of (or at least doubt about) any religion.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And PS: Referring to other editors as "trolling" is abusive and likely to get you blocked - as is edit warring, incidentally. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

More ideas...
The letters A-E and G in the MP's petition should be deserving of articles/further referencing in my view. Still not sure how to incorp inquiry. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My view is that A (Elm Guest House child abuse scandal), C (Westminster paedophile dossier), and D (Cyril Smith) are already starting to be covered, though the article titles and scope may need to be tweaked. We certainly need an article on B (Operation Orchid), but I have heard nothing at all about Tricker or Spinks and doubt the notability of their cases at present.  I also think there needs to be an article started on what I suppose will be the Wanless inquiry - .  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Most Plusquamperfect Looshpah Laureate
Welcome to this most illustrious club ! I am currently sat in my smoking jacket and cap, whilst being served bunches of grapes by a nubile. Ummm... possibly a little à la Savile.

However, I may have been sold a pup with Preston Shannon. I might need to unearth my trusty blagging attributes to emerge with my esteemed reputation undamaged.

Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I should apologise as it was my suggestion that he needed an article! But, I think notability can still be established, irrespective of the validity of his Grammy "nominations".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No apologises needed, but I think you are right. I was led up the garden path with the Grammy "nominations" blarb, which I should have tried harder to "research".  Don't fret, I'll try to wriggle my way out of this one ! Night, night.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem on user talk pages
Shaidar cuebiyar and I have encountered a strange problem. Neither of us can make edits on our personal talk pages for inexplicable reasons. He had to contact me about this on the talk page of the Australian rock article. When we try to submit an edit a pink box comes up explaining:


 * "Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist. To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. 'goo.gl', 't.co', 'youtu.be', 'bit.ly'), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded. Links containing 'google.com/url?' are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded."

Neither of us has put a bad link on our personal talk pages. When we look there, we can see nothing of that sort mentioned. He brought up the issue on the help page, but there has been no clarification of the problem as of yet. You may know how to fix this problem, or could bring it to the attention of those who can. We would greatly appreciate your help in this matter. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no idea why you think a technophobe like me might understand this. I've just been able to edit your talk page with no problem.  You need to raise it at WP:VP/T.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll jump in here if you two don't mind. I didn't have a problem with my own talkpage, I had trouble editing Garagepunk66's page. The problematic link was higher in talkpage in the section on the Kinks. At the help desk I suggested two solutions. I then decided that as Garagpunk66 clearly wanted the situation fixed I should just jump in and try one of them. I used the nowiki solution which appears to have solved the problem. I have subsequently edited Garagpunk66's talkpage to add comments I wanted to deliver hours ago.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Shaidar cuebiyar, you've solved the problem! My talk page now edits again. Thanks, so much. P.S. I am the ultimate technophobe. Both of you have so much more Wiki experience than I. I never cease to be amazed. Thank you for all of your help. A barnstar for both of you! Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Peter Jaconelli
There are now so many allegations of historic sexual abuse that it is hard to keep up with them all. Peter Jaconelli, the former mayor of Scarborough, is one, and this cartoon in the current Private Eye is worth a look.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is he notable? Not really.  Are the allegations notable?  I don't think so - lots of people have done lots of crimes throughout history, but very few of them have articles - quite rightly.  Is it something worth mentioning at Borough of Scarborough?  Again, I doubt it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been a fair amount of media coverage of this, but not to the point of WP:GNG with a standalone article. What caught my eye is the point, as with Cyril Smith, that he would have been interviewed or charged today on the basis of similar evidence. This is a recurring feature of historic sex abuse cases. He has also been the subject of posthumous stripping of honours, as with Savile.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that, when there is good solid academic and reasoned discussion and analysis of the process we are now going through - the emergence and pursuit of historic abuse allegations - there will be a need for an over-arching article, which could possibly mention, or list, all the published examples. I don't think we're at that stage yet, but I'm sure we will be quite soon.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What a shame Eye cartoons are copyright. I'm sure some editors would just love to see that one posted (?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article on the BBC website today is also interesting. Things have now expanded beyond the stage where it is all about Jimmy Savile or celebrities, and maybe there should be a new article dealing with this area.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps List of historic child abuse investigations in the United Kingdom? At present I think it could only be a list, rather than trying to present an overview, as we are still in the middle of the investigations and, as I said, we don't have the reliable academic sources to put it all into due perspective.  We also need an article on the Butler-Sloss Inquiry - which could be started under that name, and moved when and if it gets a more official title.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: See also User:Gareth E Kegg's link further up this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is now a growing realisation that Savile was not the only person doing this sort of thing in the 1960s and 1970s, and that it was depressingly commonplace in children's homes, private schools and other institutions of the period. Australia is currently going through a similar period of reassessment, with the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. My preference would be for a properly fleshed out article rather than one in list format.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes, but do we have enough information to present a reliable overview at the moment? What we have is a lot of individual stories, and a lot of commentary.  Is that enough for a new article, or would we have to put it all in context ourselves - which would present dangers of WP:OR and particularly WP:SYNTH?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not. The list article suggested would be a good starting point, though.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Common name
What is the common name for Chișinău in English? I guess you are not only knowledgable about person names. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would think Chisinau. I don't claim to be "knowledgeable" about person names per se - but I've looked at a great many books in English that refer to the Ertegun (or Ertegün) brothers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Memphis Minnie
I see you edit music-reated articles (and have recently commented at Talk:Mempis Minnie), so I wondered if you have any advice on this. I'm thinking of rationalising the "Discography" and "Compilations" sections of the article, but I'm not sure quite what to do with them. They are both lists of compilation albums, and I'm not sure about the significance of many of them. Because she recorded over 50 years ago there are any number of compilations out there, probably including multiple reissues of many tracks. I'm thinking of merging the two sections and removing most of the compilations listed. The Blues Classics ones should obviously stay, and I suspect that most if not all of the ones in "Discography" should go, but I'm not sure about the rest and I haven't managed to find any particularly helpful policies. Looking at the articles for other artists of similar era and output isn't particularly helpful either (for example Big Bill Broonzy has quite a few albums listed while Charley Patton and Blind Lemon Jefferson have only singles listed). Any suggestions about how to figure out which ones to keep? Brunton (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I'm not especially familiar with Memphis Minnie's recordings, so what I say is based on general principles rather than specifics. Yes, obviously the two tables should be merged in some way (and the unhelpful "genre" column removed) - assuming that we want to have tables at all.  But, as well as creating a new table, my suggestion - per WP:PROSE - would be to highlight important features of her album discography in prose.  That is, we should have text explaining things like the first compilation of her recordings that was released; the most comprehensive compilations; any compilations containing previously unissued tracks; the earliest of her compilations on CD; major remasterings; etc..   If, as is probably the case, some of those albums listed are just cheap recent compilations of readily available out-of-copyright material, it's of very little encyclopedic value, in my opinion, to mention them at all.  But, if there is information to be given about (for example) who produced or wrote the liner notes for the earliest compilation of her recordings, that may well be worth mentioning.  Incidentally, having just looked at List of songs recorded by Memphis Minnie, that looks pretty worthless as well - no recording or label details, or any indication of which of the compilations the songs appear on!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll have a go at that at some point (I have various reference books I can source it from). I might also have a go at producing a discography page for her released singles.  Brunton (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Sshit
Got any sysop rights? Please see Forrest Hayes. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. It's down to be dealt with at Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 13.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, Baroness Butler-Sloss
Hi, I saw the revert on the above article and have a few questions: Autarch (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this a WP:BLP issue? Granted, I may have missed the relevant section of it, but I thought that reporting criticism of the appoinment of her to the role was relevant.
 * Which article would it be suitable to include the criticism of the appointment in?
 * Butler-Sloss Inquiry. It's already there, apart from the comments by her nephew, which are not really relevant.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Autarch (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Winter
Hey Ghmyrtle - I've reverted your edits to Johnny Winter for the moment, as the refs just aren't solid enough yet. I've copied the diff of your final version over to the talk page it case it is confirmed, so you (or anyone else) can reboot it from there if the need arises. Cheers Manning (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience, I know I can be stubborn, but we've been burned before. I restored to the version you had last created. Manning (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Manfred Manifestation
Hi Ghmyrtle, and thanks for adding a proper ref.

I heard a snippet of that song while changing stations between the football, the football and the football on the radio a few weekends ago, and decided to look up what Wikipedia said about it... and there wasn't an article about it! There's a whole lot more that could be written about it - please do add more.

Thanks again - Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Kelley Hunt
This is another long shot. I have been trying to find a date of birth for this Kansas based blues pianist. Her draft article is currently in my sandbox. I do not know for sure whether Kelley Hunt is her birth name, married name or even stage name. Most sources state she was born in Kansas City, Missouri, but more than one (which I have not used because it had nothing else of note in it) mentioned Emporia, Kansas, which I think is not too far away from the other. Hunt's debut album was released in 1995, so I initially guessed she was born c. 1965. Oh, and she currently resides in Lawrence, Kansas.

But, I have now just found this, which seems to suggest she once was Kelley Wade, and maybe was born around 1957 ? Possibly the daughter of Mr and Mrs M. J. Wade ??

Not much to go on I know, but thought you might relish a challenge !

I note you are on a 'semi-wikibreak', whatever that means, so I am not expecting a quick response.

Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm on a "semi-wikibreak" because of my bizarre gardening accident which has left me semi-encased in plaster.... But no worries, I'll check it out and get back to you.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK.... Kelley Wade - who I'm sure from the photos is the same person - attended Lowther Junior High School at Emporia, Kansas, in 1970/71, and the University of Kansas in 1977.  I would estimate born around 1956/57, but nothing definitive.  See also this - again, nothing definitive, but the photo is of the Flint Hills in Kansas, which matches up, and pursuing a few links suggests that is definitely the same person - blues pianist, etc. - and I suspect that she married someone called Rick King (and had a son).  I can't find birth details because I don't think Kansas ones are online (each state does things differently).  If it were me, I would stick with "born in Kansas City" as that's what her own site says - but maybe add that she attended school in Emporia.  That's yer lot!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you - the full article, suitably amended, is to follow. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:EN
I read it again, for you, and now am even more convinced than before that in the case of a living (or recently dead as Ahmet Ertegün) person who is from a nation with a language written in Latin Alphabet, such as Turkish, the name should be written just as it is in the national language of the person. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think if you want to discuss it further you should raise it at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Personally, I have no fundamental objection to using diacritics, but I think in that case the guidance and consensus is against you.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Jonathan King
Further to your improvements to the Jonathan King article, I can't understand why, if he signed Genesis to Decca, he owns the rights to their early recordings to this day and, if he left Decca in 1970, why he kept releasing singles on that label. In his book he says he was an independent producer, signing acts and releasing them through various labels. What contradicts this? 213.152.6.214 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No idea. If you want to pursue this, I suggest you go back to the article talk page.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in Note a in the article (which is sourced): he acquired the rights but immediately sub-licensed them to Decca who then issued the recordings. Obviously he retained residual rights. Sources always refer to the band being "signed to Decca" as a result, which is the usual but loose terminology. The Note gives the legal technicality for those who might be interested in the detail (such as the IP). DeCausa (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find any source, reliable or otherwise, that says he was a "talent spotter" but that's Wikipedia for you! 213.152.6.214 (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you raise these comments at the article talk page, please, rather than here? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've walked away from that but your answer to my original question is reprinted below so I assume you are an independent editor wanting to correct errors. "If you identify any particular "inaccuracies", no doubt one of the many independent editors who see this page will be able to verify and, if appropriate, correct them. Ghmyrtle" 213.152.6.214 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The place to raise concerns about the article is not here. As it says at the top of this page, I'm on a "semi-wikibreak" - mainly because I'm partly encased in a plaster cast.  But in any case, the only comments you have made seem to be quite general points about the inaccuracies in our article, and the truthfulness of King's own claims.  What you need to do - on the article talk page, not here - is to suggest specific changes to wording, backed up by independent sources (not King's own words), and see if other editors agree with you.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about your health. I'll leave it to independent editors.213.152.6.214 (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Offa's Dyke
I don't know what your problem is? But seeing how shit the article was before I tidied it up, makes me think you're "one of those" to keep going back in and unnecessarily altering things. I make this point because I am respectful of what has gone before and usually only copy paste what is already there and try and edit the rest for readability.

It makes me laugh that you then come along and start changing the links and wording, when all I did was resuse the words and inline links already there. Seems you were quite happy with them before, so what's changed now?
 * 1.For example. Edit: 16:35, 23 July 2014: "Today, the England-Wales border still mostly follows the dyke through the Welsh Marches."
 * I keep this sentence only move it into the section entitled "Current".
 * Almost immediately after I finish, you now state this is "misleading" in your edit summary. Misleading? It's same words that were there when you last edited on 5 June. But now they're misleading!


 * 2.Another example. Edit: 16:35, 23 July 2014: "The last four words are vital: historians and archaeologists coming to the Dyke have had Asser in their hand, and have been looking for an earthwork 'from sea to sea'."
 * What a load of bilge. The term "had Asser in their hand" is so risible that suffice it to say it's completely meaningless and not worth commenting on. Yet in your last edit of 5 June, this ridiculous sentence was still acceptable to you in a so-called encyclopedic article!!


 * 3.From the lede. Edit: 16:35, 23 July 2014: "It formed some kind of delineating border between" becomes "a delineating border between". I left it as it was. Now you find it unacceptable.

You see where I am going with this? I left things generally as they were; only tightening copy by making the narrative more chronological. But you haven't because you are also changing the article's copy. The same copy that was once perfectly acceptable to you!

So which is it? Pride or something to do with WP:OWN sunshine? Considering the general crappiness and unreliability of the article (and how happy you were with that state of affairs) I find it irksome that after taking 30 minutes out of my Sunday afternoon to reshape the article into something that borders on being an informative read, you just can't help but keep going back in and making changes.

The final ones just establish the fact that you have an issue because not only did I have to change your poor edit before (pointing out a subordinating conjunction in the process) but now you've changed "purpose" to "existence" in the lede. Why on earth did you do that? It's a man-made inanimate object: therefore to exist it had people create it for a "purpose". Your sanctimonious change to suggest "existence" elevates Offa's Dyke to a naturalist entity that is in a state of living or possessing objective reality, ("whaaaaaaat"?!).

At 12.50pm today you were quite happy with the article and its texts as they were. But at 1pm - after I went in as per WP:BOLD - you just couldn't help but make unnecessary changes. Why didn't you edit on its protective status before?

My advice read up on WP:OWN, likewise just read up. You're evidently out of your depth in basic matters of grammar and vocabulary. You might be 14 for all I know. But whatever. Either way you're view on what is a good article is not helped by your possessive attitude and general lack of ability. I hope God I don't have to do it all again next year after you've tinkered it back into an unreadable mess.81.129.205.84 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, deserves it's own ramparts!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC) p.s. let's hope you get a bike for your 15th birthday Gmh, you've onviously made a right pig's ear of this!!


 * When accusing someone of being "out of your depth in basic matters of grammar and vocabulary", it's generally advisable to make sure one's own ship is fully watertight, otherwise one may appear a trifle foolish ("resuse", "It's same words", "you're view"...) SmartyPantsWhite


 * Umm... what??? The fact that I described text as "misleading" doesn't mean that I described your edits as misleading.  Your edits were not a problem - by and large I kept them (apart from things like your reference to "the precise reasons for its purpose..."... umm, what?).  The fact that you edited the article, positively, had the side-effect of alerting me to the fact that there were other parts of the text that needed to be corrected and improved.  Nothing at all to do with your edits.  That process is how articles improve here - someone does an edit, someone else changes it and adds something else, someone else changes that, etc. etc..  All perfectly normal and routine.  Nothing to see here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

British Blues Awards
Do you think these are notable ? There are about 15 Wikipedia articles that mention them, but they seem, as far as the British mainstream media is concerned, to disappear under the radar. The Wiki guidelines seem rather muddy too - as ever.

Just some thoughts rather than a definitive answer, is all that I am looking for at this stage. No rush - I assume you are still plastered !?! Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In my mind there's a difference in notability terms between something being mentioned in an article, and being notable enough to have an article itself. If you were thinking of creating an article on the awards, I think you would need to look at any references in the independent press - of which there are probably very few.  But personally I see no harm in mentioning the awards in articles on musicians - the nominations are clearly selected by a group of people in the industry and subject to a public vote.  So, I would say not completely irrelevant, but I wouldn't give too much weight to them either.  On the fence, as usual...   Out of plaster, but still swollen and unable to do some basics.  I will use the car wash next time!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. A little closer inspection reveals that the Awards have no independent coverage to talk of, and they, much to my surprise, only started in 2010.  Hardly of historical significance.  I'll let sleeping dogs stay on the bed.  Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Conflicts
Cheers. Another fucking edit conflict where it reads intervening edits. What is the point of the inuse template if people just ignore it? Keri (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to undo single-letter basic spelling errors, whether you are undertaking major rewrites or not. Have some respect for other editors, and try to be civil.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It creates intermediate revisions which causes edit conflicts. How about some respect for the editor who places a very clear and very courteous notice at the top of the page? Keri (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You want to continue this argument over one keystroke. Really??  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One keystroke to you. Constant edit conflicts for me. I had the page open in another tab so it actually meant a lot more than "one" keystroke for me. And I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out how needless your edit was in the circumstances, with the inuse notice clearly displayed and also reiterated in my summary. Keri (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Correcting a basic spelling error is not "needless". But... whatever.  Obviously your editing techniques and mine are some way apart.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverting a revert that had explained the page was in use and edit conflicts were being created is "needless". Keri (talk) 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear from Village Pump that "Edit conflict" is to be renamed "Edit slight misundersanding". Martinevans123 (talk)
 * "Because edit conflicts are irritating and time-consuming, you may choose to alter your editing habits to render them less frequent. One of the easiest ways is to edit the smallest portion of the article necessary at one time. While using section editing does not directly reduce edit conflicts, if you make changes only to one paragraph or section before saving, the likelihood of someone else editing that same paragraph or section at the same time is very small. By contrast, if you make edits all over a page, then the likelihood is higher that someone else will try to edit one of the same parts of the page at the same time."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Better still, put a great big notice RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE stating that the page is in use. Keri (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that it's not "better still". It's arrogant and offputting to other editors, and can be avoided by a simple change to editing behaviour.  And please don't add material to introductory sections that is not supported by information in the main article, per WP:LEAD.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be supported in the main body of the article if I ever get the chance to write it without you coming along and causing edit conflicts. Keri (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?
So, to avoid more passive-aggressive fucking-about from other people I start making edits to the smallest portion of the article necessary at one time. AND YOU COME ALONG AND START REVERTING THEM. Stop being a WP:DICK. Keri (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop shouting, read WP:BOOMERANG, calm down a little, and try editing according to guidelines. You add material to the article first, and then you summarise it in the lead.  Not the other way round.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Louis (Blues Boy) Jones
Ghmyrtle. I am in another zone or space in time right now. My name is LaVern Jones Lemons. I really don't know where to begin. I have an amazing story to share with the world about my late father Louis Blues Boy Jones. I have been working on my book since 2007, that's when I discovered his music on the Internet. In 2011 I purchased my first computer and to be honest I need to sharpen up on my computer skills. My mother often talked about my father when we were small children. Then I remember when my father told me and my two brothers some of the things he experienced while he was in the music business. Late one night while I was browsing the Internet I saw where people from all around the globe were asking questions among themselves such as: Who is this Louis Blues Boy Jones? Where is he from? Where can I buy more of his music? What does he look like? Who are you listening to? Someone replied, "Come on Home" by Louis Jones I love his music. Then when a blogger posted a comment about Jones switching from blues music to soul and fell through the cracks and was never heard of again. That statement sadden my heart and I made up my mind to really get busy with my book and let people know about the life of my amazing Dad. I have written five articles and these articles have been featured in five different newspapers. Also, i have been sharing my article with people all around the globe. A few months ago I wrote this Bio and I had my cousin to submit it to Wikipedia. Phil O'Neal did say that someone replied back that more concrete information was needed concerning dates during Jones' years in the entertainment business. I have been communicating with Joe Louis Smith since May 2011 via telephone. Joe is the last living band member of the Bobby Scott orchestra Band, Joe will be 77 years old on August 29, 2014. I talked with Joe on Thursday August 7, 2014. I did not know this information was available about my father until today. I can't wait to share this exciting news with him. I have someone working on another project for Jones' legacy and she emailed me the Wikipedia link on Jones. Highly grateful that you decided to do this for my father. I thank you above and beyond for doing such an honor for Jones' music and for the band members. These men left behind some of the most beautiful music to share with the world. Some of Jones' music has been around over 58 years and has touched five generations in our family. Again, I appreciate your great works. Also, on YouTube Jones' nine year old grandson pays a tribute to his great grandfather by singing a medley of Jones' ten songs. Please log on and view: Tribute to Louis Blues Boy Jones. I appreciate your valuable time. Thanks again. You are a great deserving editor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVern Jones Lemons (talk • contribs) 23:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Guy. Just made it in from work. Looking forward to another adventure about Louis Blues Boy Jones' legacy. I truly appreciate your guidance and concern about Jones' legacy as far as getting the proper material needed for finalizing the Wikipedia site about his life's achievements. LaVernLaVern Jones Lemons (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * LaVern - please contact me directly, by email. I need to pass on some information directly to you.  Find "Email this user" on this page, and send me a message so that I can reply to you in confidence.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

"How do I look" vs "What do I look like"
Hi, Ghmyrtle. Ask yourself these two questions and you will see the difference - 1. "How do I look?"; 2. "What do I look like?". Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "How she may have looked..." is perfectly good English (at least, British English) - as is "How do I look?" - and avoids the unnecessary use of the impersonal pronoun. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, it is fine with me. English is no longer what it used to be. Such a pity. But mediocrity is life choice, so let it be. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 12:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"small"
Thanks for that - I wasn't aware you'd been watching! *Sigh* indeed - those pesky bees don't half get under some people's bonnets. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I got a rockin' pneumonia and the boogie woogie flu. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cedric Burnside
I do not know if you can do better than me with just a '1978' birth date for this latter-day hill country bluesman. My 350th new article as it turns out. There are a few pointers early in the article to help your search. Can't be too many Cedric Burnside's in the world ! Hope you are on the mend - conversely I am currently house bound. As ever... thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This says Cedric O. Burnside, born August 1978, which is as far as I got looking at Ancestry records - but this says 26 August. So, happy birthday Cedric!!  (Coincidence??)  Confirmed here with birthday messages!!  There's also this article - I don't know if you've seen it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I did not see the Louisiana Weekly article, which proffers the alternative place of birth.  However, now that I have, I am   tempted to ignore it, as it flies in the face of all the other sources that list Holly Springs, Mississippi as his birth place - including Burnside's own homepage !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reneé Austin
Can I bother you again ? This lady's tale is a somewhat sad one - as the result of surgery she was unable to sing again after issuing three albums between 1996 and 2005. She was born in San Diego, California, but moved to Kingsland, Texas, by the age of three. She attended college in Minneapolis. Born possibly circa 1972 ?? Careful... because she is not the Reneé Austin listed here. Another long shot with such a relatively simple name, but perhaps you can come up trumps ? Do let me know if these general requests are getting a little too much. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk)


 * No problem in principle, but this one is proving difficult. Seems like she's still performing, though - it gives her age as 48, so born 1965/66.  Also this and "After 8 long years of struggle, there is an amazing happy ending to this story; Austin’s voice has miraculously returned! Says the artist, "I never thought I would sing again. I had no hope. I had resigned myself to the fact that it was over. But now I have a chance to do the thing I love to do most - write and perform my music for the One who gave my voice back to me. Jesus you get all the glory & the honor.".   I'll keep on searchin'.  Of course it's perfectly possible (given that she didn't record until she was apparently 30 or so) that Austin is her married name.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahhhh.... some good news then. All due to Jesus too.  Praise the Lord !  Cynicism aside, initially thinking that she was somewhat younger, I wondered if it might be her subsequent married name that was masking reality.  More probably, the other way round.  Thanks for your efforts thus far.  I will await whatever else you can unearth (if anything) and then put the article into the main space within a day or two.  Ta,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Northumberland
As far as I can see, my edits are added explanatory information on top of the existing material. I have referred to the current administrative county of Tyne and Wear as a governmental entity that exists simultaneously to, and occupies partial territory of, the two historic counties who's borders it straddles. I have not stated that the traditional counties correspond with today's administrative borders and "still exist for administrative purposes" as you say. In fact, I have attempted to convey quite the opposite concept that the area governed by Northumberland county council is a smaller area within the historic county of the same name. I also think it is worthy to point out that I am native to the area I have edited information on and the general consensus amongst fellow locals is that Northumberland contains Newcastle and North Tyneside (with the rest of Tyne and Wear being part of County Durham). It is this view that I would've liked to have been represented on such a widely used website as Wikipedia to promote the awareness of the historic counties due to their there cultural importance and significance that dwarfs that of the administrative counties. So I hope that you could perhaps inform me as to how I could tweak my edits to conform with the established rules of the site while maintaining their meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorcan0t (talk • contribs) 11:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the changes you have made. You have removed references to the current county bordering Cumbria, Tyne and Wear, and the Scottish Borders, and you have removed references to Newcastle no longer being within Northumberland as currently defined.   Those changes are contrary to the approach that is adopted on this site, and your protestations on "the general consensus amongst fellow locals" are, I'm afraid, not relevant, and neither is your position that you are trying "to promote the awareness of the historic counties due to their cultural importance and significance that dwarfs that of the administrative counties."  We are to reflect a neutral point of view.  The consensus here is that articles should primarily reflect the current administrative geography, but of course can additionally explain historic boundaries and allegiances.  That's not my decision - it's a decision reached collectively after lengthy discussions some time ago.  It's best if I copy this across to the article talk page, where any further discussion can take place.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

incomprehensible
Hello Ghmyrtle, what is incomprehensible about my contribution? There are two spelling mistakes, but the contents are clearly understandable.

Would that be better? - Walther Stützle, former German deputy minister of defense, critizised the summit agenda was obviously completly void of political perspectives ("depoliticization"), concentrating only on military details. It should not be forgotten that NATO was not endangered in any way. He deplored the Baltic countries did not wish to play their historic role of intermediaries between Russia and Western Europe. Gabel1960 (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies if my edit summary was a little incomplete. Reading your revised addition, I think I can work out what you are trying to say, though the wording still needs correcting:  "Walther Stützle, former German deputy minister of defence, criticised the summit agenda, which he said was completely devoid of political perspectives, concentrating only on military details.  He said that it should not be forgotten that NATO was not endangered in any way. He deplored the fact that the Baltic countries did not wish to play their historic role of intermediaries  between Russia and Western Europe."  But that is still unclear.  What is meant by "NATO was not endangered in any way" - the organisation, or the countries?  More important is the fact that the comments are not sufficiently noteworthy to be included - Stützle does not even have an article here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions, your version is clearly better, but not very far form my own text. HE means Nato is not endangered by Russia, because Russia is not interested in attacking NATO member states. Stützle is well known in Germany, a NATO member state. He has an article in the German wikipedia. I am sure there are more important persons around than him, but so far I have found no other critical voices. I suggest to reedit my text and add more important sources later on, if you agree.

Walther Stützle, former German deputy minister of defence, criticised the summit agenda, saying it was completely devoid of political perspectives, concentrating only on military details. He said that it should not be forgotten that NATO was not endangered by Russia in any way. He deplored the fact that the Baltic countries did not wish to play their historic role of intermediaries between Russia and Western Europe." Gabel1960 (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That looks OK, but I'm still not sure that any other editors would consider his views worthy of mention. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Lantern Project
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lantern Project, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.lanternproject.org.uk/about-us/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Faisakeel
Hi, Ghmyrtle. This editor is still doing it, obviously has no intention of stopping, and will not respond to any requests to discuss. You may want to take this up with your friendly local admin. Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Birkenhead / Beechwood / Noctorum / Woodchurch
I agree that there is a lot of detail, but as this is a place where a lot of people seek to research, detail should been seen as a positive not a negative and with out detail there is a danger that the articles become seriously lacking in information. The detail provided in my edits is factual and based on 40 years of personal knowledge growing up in the areas edited.

If it felt that I have provided too much detail, then there is the opportunity for re-editing, but to simply dismiss the entire edit is a bit heavy handed and does not respect the views of others.

I accept that I have mis-spelt the word "formerly" and I should have checked this 1st.

crunchie580 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.178.194 (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Katherine Henderson
Me again. I am composing an article on this classic female blues singer (which is in my 'sandbox' - I do not know whether you can access that page, or not). Anyhow, she (as far as I can tell, Katherine Henderson was her birth name) was born in St. Louis, Missouri, United States on June 23, 1909, and in 1928 married a John Jackson. My question is when did she die. Currently the draft article cites 1947, but I have my doubts. Mainly because that was the year of death for Edmonia Henderson, who issued at least one single using the name Catherine Henderson. I think sources may have muddled up the two individuals. Could you work your oracle and see what you can unearth ? Thanks. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this one is beyond even me, I'm afraid. I'm sure that generations of blues scholars have pored over the records, and found nothing.  One of the problems is that Katherine, Henderson, and Jackson are all relatively common names, and she could have died any time between the 1940s and 2000s.  I'd probably err on the side of caution and say "unknown" (though I'm sure the WP:BLP people will say that she could, possibly, be still alive...).    Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine; then I will take your advice and moved the article into the mainframe. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me
I'm covered in chagrin that you think I'm making personal attacks, Myzza. Please read authoritarianism and autism to get a better grasp of why my profound respect for your intelligence and honesty is not coming across as well as it should. But despite my autism, I have enough theory of mind to know that if I'm blocked by you and your equally intelligent and honest pals, you won't feel any glow of authoritarian satisfaction. CurrentUK (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles
You asked about whether there should be an article about the Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and I created it. Could do with some help. JASpencer (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's a good start. I've done a few tweaks, and will keep an eye on it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there other places where some editors can be enticed? It's a fascinating topic, and I've been watching this for ages but I'm got no roots from that area. JASpencer (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not unless you want to raise it at Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014, perhaps. I would have thought that interested editors in that part of the world would pick up on the article's existence from their watchlists though.  If you have the time, I'm sure there is a lot of useful information on the Shetland Times, Orkney Press and Journal and Hebrides News sites to browse through.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Living Blues
This dates back some while, so I may be dreaming, but did you once state, many eons ago, that you had a copious collection of these magazines ? In your loft / attic / skip / garage, or somewhere. Anyhow, it's just that I came across this reference source for a new article that I am working on, and wondered if you had the 1972 edition including the Guitar Pete Franklin interview. It's more than a long shot but....

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry, not me.. I do have a collection of Juke Blues (now apparently defunct) which I can look through if you like - it only goes back a few years though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Bollocks, that's me getting my living mixed up with my jukes. Story of my life (or living). Sorry, old boy, to disturb your slumbers.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Lantern Project
Hello, I see you've edited this article to try and remove the copyright violations that the Bot discovered above. Unfortunately, it is still very close to the source material. The sentence structure has been swapped around some, but it is still what we consider closely paraphrased. It would be most helpful if you could give it another go, making sure to re-write in your own words, not including any of the direct source material in the prose. The source should provide the concepts and ideas of course, just not the actual words. Thanks for your contributions, Crow  Caw  23:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Questionable Move
Thank you for undoing the rename of Scottish independence referendum, 2014.

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * One reversion does not make a "war". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unionism in the United Kingdom
Hi Ghmyrtle. Thanks for your very useful on Unionism in Wales. I added some information to the page on Unionism in the United Kingdom, attempting to bring together information from the articles about the topic in the constituent countries. May you have a look at it? It was subsequently undone by another user (a Welsh nationalist), who raised legitimate concerns about how support for the Union is measured. I attempted to address them. Any contribution/thoughts would be fantastic, as it is a page which needs some attention. Thanks! WatermillockCommon (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can understand why your edits there were reverted - essentially, they were quite poorly referenced, and there is a danger of original research and certainly synthesis in your edits.  I did wonder whether there was a basis for the Unionism in Wales article at all, but on balance I'm happy for it to remain and be improved.   It is up to you to provide good references (not the Daily Mail!!) to support the material that you have added.   I will keep an eye on both articles.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Increasingly contentious editing was a good reason for suspending editing activity, pending attitude adjustment, which seems incomplete. I don't think I've mentioned before that your long-standing efforts for collegial resolution to disputes are always welcome and not unappreciated. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Een ster voor jou!

 * Thank you! I started that article several years ago, so I was fascinated to see the new information about her name and details.  It's good when we can work together to improve articles - sadly, it doesn't happen here as often as I would like.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandboxes
Hi! I came here to see what reply you had made to the courteous request from above in relation to Lantern Project, and checked your contribs to see if you would have seen it or not. I'm afraid that some of what I saw I found quite worrying: edits such as, where you copy-paste copyright material into your sandbox, are against our copyright policy and altogether unacceptable here. Could I ask if you would kindly go through all your sandboxes, save somewhere else any non-copyright content you want to keep, and then blank them or db-g7 them to get rid of the history as well as any remaining copyvio content? Thank you. If, understandably, you'd rather hear this from someone who unlike me has admin status and long experience in this area, please say so, and I'll ping one or more such. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding Crow's comment, I didn't respond immediately because I didn't think that my wording was close paraphrasing. It did use some of the same words as the source, because they are the only appropriate words to use, but in a significantly different order.  At the same time, I recognised that I needed to take another look at it - but I hadn't got round to it.   I don't want to start a discussion over that though - I'll take another look at the revised article in due course.   Regarding sandboxes, I accept that the approach I've used in the past has not been best practice, and I'll happily cooperate with removing any residual copyvio material - though removing it from the page histories is not something I've done before, and I won't be able to do all of it immediately as I will be away.  Be assured that there is no copyvio - so far as I'm aware - in any of the articles I've created.   Thinking about it a bit more, if you (or anyone else) would like to do what is necessary to delete the histories of all my sandboxes, I'd be delighted.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC).
 * Thank you for your understanding. To be honest, I had already looked to see if copyright content was being inadvertently included in your final article text, and from what I saw, had concluded that it wasn't. If there's nothing in those sandboxes that you need to keep, you can just replace the content of each with "db-g7"; they will soon disappear. I'm not an admin, so I can't (and shouldn't) mess about with pages in your userspace. But if you need help with it, I can ask. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll do that.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You were given terrible advice - db-u1 is the better tag. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a few remaining that I need to look at, so I'll use that template next time. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for deleting them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Cultural relations between the English and Welsh.
Hi Ghmyrtle, thanks for your comments.

I have to say I was surprised at the tone and content of the criticism, I am a "rookie Wikipedian" and would appreciate some further explanation. Firstly you said "This is an encyclopedia, not a place to report what blogs say. We do not report what individual columnists say - even if they are notable themselves" there is no reference, links or citations of any blogs, Young's article was published in the Daily Telegraph, the entry I updated references other, similar broadsheet journalists (Rod Little, Roger Lewis) which only feature a single citation of the article itself.

You also add "unless the controversies they promote are themselves reported elsewhere - in reliable sources" I have read the reliable sources page you helpfully linked but I cannot see how my additions differ from others already within the entry. I have secondary Press Association published article which reference both Youngs original writing and the controversy it generated, would this not improve the additions, rather than simply deleting them?

I appreciate the emotive nature of this entry, and I tried to word my addition to avoid inflammatory language. I can see that where I referenced criticisms of Young within the articles comments section or Young's twitter account, it would be inappropriate, but there is no way to discuss the criticisms objectively without referencing them. As I said there are similar paragraphs on other journalists which simply mention criticism and do not cite any public domain criticism. Please can you explain if this is would be an acceptable rewrite.

Happy to discuss further Cymrogogoch (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone paid to be argumentative in print wrote about something that supposedly happened to him 13 years ago. That's trivial.  You then claimed that his comments "attracted criticism", and added your own commentary.  Sorry, but none of that is suitable for an encyclopedia.  If there are other similarly trivial or unsourced sections in the article, I'd support removing them as well.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)