User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 32

Marion James
Bet you ain't got one of these ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, indeed... thank you!   Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Kim Fowley
Hello, again! I noticed you edited the Kim Fowley page a while back, and was wondering if you had any book/source suggestions about him. I wrote an article about his song "The Trip" not too long ago, but it's a little too brief for me to be satisfied with it. Any help, as always, is greatly appreciated.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He did write an autobiography - reviewed here - but I haven't read it and doubt if he was the sort of character who was a reliable source about himself. There were a lot of obituaries published - and, if you haven't read this, you should... it's a fascinating read!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Incredible String Band
Thank you for expaining to me the usage of "US" in this article. I think I reverted all of the changes from "U.S." back to "US". Jwicklatz (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) Jwicklatz (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Sansone
Could I prevail on you again, to see if you can come up with a fuller birth date for this potential new article's subject matter. Presently residing here, I can not seem to get beyond 1957 (or even 1958 in a couple of sources). Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * His birthday is 27 September, apparently (also here)... if that helps. I can't find a definitive source for him having been born on that day in 1957, but.....    Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Good enough for me - I have a reference for 1957, so I await anyone who may disagree, once it appears shortly on the mainframe. Thank you  - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Brammer
I have a draft in my sandbox of a potential new article on this individual. I think the scope of his song writing portfolio is quite impressive. You are welcome to comment or edit, as you see fit. The thing is that Brammer has a redirect to his previous manifestation in Kane Gang. I think I may have asked you something similar in the past, but if I did I forget your response. What do I need to do to ensure the name points to his new article, rather than his previous group setting ? I am such an ignoramus on Wikipedia procedures, even after 10 years here, that I sometimes despair myself ! Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Put the new text here....   Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ta, and done. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again?
Again? Uamaol (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . Yes.  It is your responsibility to explain what you mean, and why you think the article needs to be improved, on the article talk page (not here).  You can't simply rely on other editors guessing what improvements you think should be made.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The individual whom questioned my adding of the tags was the article creator and has taken effective ownership of it, which is evidenced by the fact that that was the main thing they had a problem with. If no users have come to a consensus, but instead delete tags because they cannot take questioning of the content of an article they have taken effective ownership over, then surely enough, such tags should not require explanation. Uamaol (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This needs to be discussed on the article talk page, not with me here. No-one "owns" the article.  Equally, no-one apparently understands what particular parts of the article you are disputing, and it is up to you to give an explanation.  Then, other editors can address your concerns.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Buffin
Sad news. I have followed the various Mott personnel careers, since seeing the band play in 'Ull back in the day. I knew he was not well for some time, but still. He hailed from your present neck of the woods, didn't he ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dropping like flies. I honestly can't remember if I ever saw Mott or not - I can't have been very impressed if I did.   Hereford's not that far away I suppose, but a pain to get to from here.  Did I tell you I'm offloading most of my old vinyl via eBay at the moment?  Very strange, discovering what fetches ridiculous prices and what doesn't sell at all - no relation to quality, or indeed anything else logical.  Strange world we live in.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A bit surprised there is a market at all for old vinyl. Why the hell don't they download the digital stuff for nowt.  Anyhow, what brought the most filthy lucre, and is it worth the hassle (selling old vinyl I mean, not conking like billy ho). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Get with it, daddio! Vinyl is what's hip n' groovy, man.  Highest prices I've got so far are for the Seeds, Rare Bird, Hendrix, and Amon Duul II... with David Jones coming up on the rails.  Well worth while if you have time on your hands (and let's face it, doesn't everyone on this site have more time than they know what to do with?)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And another one. Perhaps I'd better get shifting my dusty old plastic before I'm next off the mortal coil.  I thought they used old vinyl for scratching and such.  Can't imagine what Amon Dull must sound like over a drum and bass back beat.  Mind you, they sounded bloody terrible without it ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish
We could be cordial to each other and work together, not always be at loggerheads, it is such a shame as I think we both mean well and sorry if I am sometimes terse, I don't mean to be but sometimes it can get frustrating, regards. Twobells (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Terseness is fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel the same way as Twobells. I had put a kind thread about the Wrecking Crew article here, because I wanted to see it as an opportunity to re-establish good rapport with you Ghmyrtle, and get some help and sources, etc. But, I took the thread off tonight, when I realized that it was not going to get the dignity of a response. That thread (the Wrecking Crew) was not intended to be a doctorate dissertation or an "War and Peace" novel or a debate. It was just a kind thread. Whether you like it or not, Ghmyrtle, you are one of the two editors that sired me in my infancy here at Wikipedia, and whether I like it or not, for better or worse, I regard you as a mentor--like a father figure--I really have no choice--you overlook the most important articles I work on--and you outrank me (and I admit that on most matters--you know best). Please, see that as a complement--and I am likewise loyal and defrring in most matters. But, sometimes I feel treated like stepchild. I'll admit: there are times I have rambled on too long in threads and debated issues too intensely--I only meant what I believed was best for the articles--and always in a non-personal way--not to be disrespectful. I have to voice my conscience at times. Instead I got accusations of "ownership" etc., when discussing the Garage rock article. That article I do not own, but take a dedicated sharing interest in, and is that for better or for worse? I spent a long amount of time to expand that article over ten-fifteen times--adding over 400 edits, helping make it one of the longest music articles here--if you don't think that was an arduous task--then think again buddy. For the one Barnstar I received for it, I made sure to mention your name and share credit with you and give you thanks (I think that you have contributed some of the best parts of the article, by the way). I just want what is fair. I now stand here at over 20,000 edits, and have created over 113 articles and have done a large expansion on a major muical genre piece that is on its way to becoming world class. So, I think I have earned the right to be treated with more kindness and respect from you and just about everyone here. I offer the olive branch of friendship--if you were not to consider it beneath your dignity to consider me as such--and perhaps be so kind as to drop me a line once in awhile asking "Hey, how are your articles coming along?" Or something like that. You will find that I love to joke and actually don't like being serious most of the time. If you wish to respond, I would welcome it--on my talk page. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have other things to do than to be sociable on this site. I would have responded, given a little more time - you gave me less than two days.  But, I would not have had much to say, in any case.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: I'm happy to thank you for the work you do here.  But (as it's of absolutely no importance to me whether I'm ever thanked or not for what I do) it's not something that often crosses my mind - sorry.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You are indeed sociable at times and are quite charming at it, I might add (when you want to be). And, every one of us likes just a little thanks once in a while, you too (none of us is immune from human nature after all).  And, I do thank you too for many things--I just want to reestablish the better rapport we had about a year ago.  I feel that while I was working on the expansion to the G.R. article, it caused a lot of tension (which I take my share of the the blame), but really what else could I do?  I think if you are OK with everything there now, then things should smooth sailing from here on out. We had an enjoyable collaboration at Freak Scene--that was a fun little diversion.  I shouldn't be so sensitive and all.  I didn't come here to get here to get a lot of thanks or crediit--I just wanted to advance my topic areas on Wikipedia.  But, then after being around for awhile and working really hard on a lot of things (particularly the G.R. article, which was about as difficult a task as one can do here) and becoming aware of everyone else and the way we are all judged--I just can't help but get this way sometimes.  That's all.  I think everything will turn out to be OK. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we will carry on working together at times. By the way, do you know anything about this series?  I have Vol.1, which I'm currently selling on Ebay.  It came out in 1986, I think.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've seen pictures of the album when I've played certain songs on Youtube, but I don't own a copy--and I have to admit that I should have known more about it (people will be surprised that that my garage knowledge is not as good as I pretend!). But, just now I glanced at the track list and it looks like a really wonderful compilation.  It has some great songs! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Peirson Frank
Thanks for your explanation and advice, to which I am happy to defer (though I have seen parentheses used thus on WP). Please action your suggestions including change of page title. GooglerW (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Question
Hello. Thank you for the nice welcome. I've just registered an account here after being a long time reader of articles on Wikipedia. I am looking to make constructive edits, obviously using sources to back them up, to the article about Cliff Richard. There is a lot of elitism going on with this article, notably by one user in particular. Does anyone know how long it will be before I have privileges to make these edits? Many thanks! CliffordJones (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The first thing you should learn to do is not make personal attacks against other editors. If people disagree with you, discuss constructively, rather than assuming that you are right and that anyone who takes a different view is wrong, or some sort of enemy.  Like you, we are all volunteers trying to do our best to produce an encyclopedia based on the best sources available, and one which presents unbiased information.  According to WP:AUTOCONFIRM, "most English Wikipedia user accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed."  So, I suggest you find one or two other, unprotected, articles on which to practise your editing skills first.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made no personal attacks. My comments about Wikipedia being a place where presenting accurate information should be priority and be accurately using the sources provided are not attacks on a person. How can I "discuss this constructively" without bringing it up? The user in question even went on to say they would not help me make constructive edits because I disagreed with them. You have made several baseless assumptions about me. CliffordJones (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You have indeed made personal attacks - for instance, describing someone as "elitist". I sense that your time on this site may be quite short, unless you modify your approach towards editing, and other editors.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you mentioned all this to the other editor who called me elitist first and made several personal attacks towards me (telling me I have no sense of honor/humor). And No, I am here to stay, and make contributions to articles that will be backed up with reliable sources. I also used the word elitism to describe the actions of someone who admits the will not help make edits for the betterment of an article. CliffordJones (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that Martin said that he would not improve the article. Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?  I suggest we all move on.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I quote from the articles talk page, his response after I said we should quote sources correctly. He said this "We have to reflect what the sources say. Perhaps you can find a better one? But I'm a bit fed up with your scolding, I'm afraid, so let's hope another editor, who is more knowledgeable about Cliff, comes along to help you". 09:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)CliffordJones (talk) PS If you want to "move on" then you are free to do so. You are under no obligation to respond further to me.

Ben E. King
Actually, "Benny King" is a legit alternate name. Mike called him "Benny" all the time. But, it should be in addition to "Ben King" not instead of. Pstoller (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. My only concern was to get the name of the disambiguation page correct.  Was he ever credited anywhere as "Benny King"?  If not, there may be no need to mention it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never seen him credited as such, other than informally. However, as I've seen it informally, it might make sense to include Ben E.'s page in a disambiguation for "Benny." (If there is no "Benny King" disambig page, I don't see any need to create one.) Pstoller (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up: For now, "Benny King" redirects to "Ben E. King," while "Ben King" points to a disambiguation page that includes Ben E. King. This is probably fine, although there are potentially noteworthy people named "Benny King" out there that might necessitate a change in the future. Perhaps "Benny King" should point to the "Ben King" disambig page. It's not an issue on which I take a strong position. Pstoller (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit of Southwell Minster - "previous denomination Roman Catholic"
I am both surprised and disappointed to see that you have removed the factual information about Southwell Minster ie 'previous denomination - Roman Catholic'. I think you will find that this is an actual historical fact and in no way contentious or 'superfluous'. I would also refer you to my previous postings on the subject (ie with reference to other church/religious buildings in Britain (eg Lincoln Cathedral, York Minster etc, etc). As I have previously stated, I do not wish to enter into a so-called 'edit war' and would ask you to respect the inclusion of factual information that is also underpinned by a general Wikipedia consensus on the matter. If you have an issue with this, I suggest you follow the procedure for some kind of arbitration (assuming there is one in place) rather than simply removing an historical fact - whether you personally approve of its inclusion or not. Kind regards (10:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)) (Woodseats44 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
 * Your history does not suggest that you have the support of the community. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely the fact being expressed in all these edits is simply “before Henry VIII there was no Anglican church”. Why does this have to be parroted out onto the articles of every existing UK ecclesiastical establishment that originated before Henry? It seems a waste of effort. In fact, was the name of the "denomination" actually "Roman Catholic" at that time? I thought it was just "the church", as there was only one denomination. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Martinevans123 On the contrary, I believe the inclusion of this fact (ie previous denomination - Roman Catholic) provides valuable historical context, perspective and clarity and, as such, it is worth the effort it takes to insert this wherever it is pertinent and relevant. I also have to say, I feel that there is a small but vociferous element of people that simply does not want to acknowledge the truth of this fact and would clearly like to expunge all traces of it. But, whatever their opinion on the matter, we are dealing with an irrefutable fact and this shall ever remain the case. As for you stating that it was just "the church" before The Reformation, I find your point somewhat disingenuous to say the least. I have previously drawn a parallel with the use of the term 'BC' (or as it equally applies 'BCE') which also surely did not exist until just over 2000 years ago. Just as we accept that BC or BCE are terms that provide context, perspective and clarity, so too, I would suggest, does the term 'Roman Catholic'. Thanks for your input and hope that helps. (Woodseats44 (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
 * I suggest you continue this discussion on the article talk page - or at AN/I - but not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the intrusion. I have no interest in taking this to AN/I, but if Woodseats44 wants to advise us of a more suitable venue for discussion, perhaps via my Talk Page, I'd be interested to see what is said. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Greenland antipodal
(Undid revision 702750657 by Dig deeper (talk). Huh?? Everywhere is "antipodal" to somewhere else.)
 * True, but surprising there only a few land areas are antipodal to other land areas on the Earth. I thought this was an interesting geography fact.Dig Deeper (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we shall disagree over whether it's interesting or quite trivial. The maps here show antipodal areas.  We wouldn't say, in the article on Argentina, that it is antipodal to China, would we?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I learned about this through a zefrank webcast, it piqued my curiosity on the subject. I thought the sentence and wikilink may pique the curiosity and interest of readers, but perhaps you're right. Maybe too trivial. Perhaps I'll add this sort of information only to the geography sections of some of the 14 cities pairs which are listed as exact or near exact antipodes. Dig Deeper (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

 * It wasn't a conscious effort on my part, but I'm happy to have helped. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Birth and death dates
I looked over my articles to see if there was any issues regarding the subjects' birth and death. I found these two, William Hamilton Stepp and Joe Guy, do not have exact dates (Stepp only has the year). If you have some time, I'd appreciate the help.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem - happy to help. This gravestone photo confirms Stepp's death year as 1957, not 1947 - the 1947 date just seems to be an error someone picked up and has been copied elsewhere.   Other genealogy sources - which I've no reason to doubt - give his precise dates of birth and death, and my view is they can be kept in the article unless someone wants to challenge them.   Joe Guy is a different matter - he died in obscurity, and though some sources state December 1961 or January 1962, I can't find anything more specific, so it may as well be left as it is.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. This is unrelated but I was wondering if you could clarify this. I'm about to write about a person known as Reverend A. W. Nix, who recorded in the 1920s-30s. Is it ok to name the article "Reverend A. W. Nix" or simply "A. W. Nix"? I haven't found a source that mentions his full name so it is a little confusing how to go about addressing him properly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I was going to suggest it be titled without the "Reverend", but then I saw Reverend Gary Davis.  His common name seems to include the title, so... I don't know.  There is some advice at WP:TITLESINTITLES, which may help.  It would be easy enough to move it afterwards if it's queried, I suppose. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Carol Vorderman
I have reverted your reversion of my edit of Carol Vorderman in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style for Biographies which clearly states:

'For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym'

Chairboy73 (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a pseudonym - it's her maiden name. Not the same thing at all.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Julian Fauth
Could I prevail on you again, to see if you can come up with a birth date for this potential new article's subject matter. Presently lounging here, I can not seem to get anywhere. One source says he was born in Germany, but no other I have found seems to corroborate this. Little doubt he grew up in Kitchener, Ontario, and as an adult resides in, or around, Toronto. Circa 1977 seems most likely. Ta,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tricky to get any information out of Canada - they are very protective of their official records. This says he was in his mid-30s in 2008, so maybe a little older than you think... but, essentially, I can't help with this one - sorry.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your efforts. I'll go with what I've got then, and see if anyone else comes up with some information.  Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Killing Floor (band)
Do you know anything about this band ? Listed here, here and here; I can not recall them for the life of me, but they are seemingly worthy of an article. They appear to have claimed their own victim on the killing floor, plus another former band member lived up to this name Their second album was entitled Out of Uranus, so crap jokes should abound freely !

I may have a go at doing an article as, a) British and b) band, would be a bit of a novelty for me - but perhaps you are better versed ??

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really one for me, I think - anyway, I'm not spending too much time here at the moment (though I expect I'll be back), and I need to return to this to raise it up from its sorry state. Feel free to add to that one if you like, as well!    Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will have a go at Killing Floor then - it will make a change for me. Rather than cut across anything you may have drafted up for them, I went off-piste and added some referenced text to "Father Christmas", which you may find useful.  If you can forgive Discogs being an integral part of proceedings, that is. Saluté,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

When you come back
Have you heard of her ? Might be right up your street - when you have the time that is. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The first thing I notice is that this says she was born in 1945 in West Virginia, while that says she was born in 1951 in Alabama. That's a good start then....   Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS: Aha!     Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Then I see she could be Gloria Taylor, Gloria Ann Taylor, Gloria Ann Taylor-James, or even Gloria Whisenhunt.  Is this the same gal, or about three of them ?? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * PPS. Ahhhh - bless her (all three of her). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thought you might enjoy 'doing' here - good article - well done. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Worsley (explorer)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 February 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Allen Toussaint: Chicken Strut
Hi. Thanks for your work on Allen Toussaint. I see you added "Chicken Strut" to his discography (in ). I've just removed this (in ), as it doesn't seem right to me. But I wanted to let you know, in case I'm wrong and you have a better source for this — in which case, my apologies for the inconvenience.

The track by The Meters is indeed credited to a Neville: https://www.discogs.com/release/5051804-Chicken-Strut/images

However that surely is Art Neville, who was a member of The Meters and was generally co-credited for all tracks on "Chicken Strut"'s parent album, Struttin', rather than Allen Toussaint using his pseudoname of Naomi Neville. Allen Toussaint is credited as a producer of that record, but using his own name.

Obviously it'd be better to find a source which had forenames (or at least initials) on the writing credits, but without that I don't think there's enough to interpret ‘Neville’ as being Allen Toussaint. Cheers.

Smylers (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * - Yes, you are quite right. The BMI record for the song here gives the full names of the writers as Joseph Modeliste, Arthur L. Neville, Leo Nocentelli, and George Joseph Porter Jr.    I got my information from this site - which is a very useful and generally pretty reliable site, but by no means always accurate.  Thanks for noticing and correcting my mistake.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Made some additions to Critical recognition section in garage rock article.
I made some additions to the Critical recognition section of the garage rock article. I think you'll like the changes a lot. For a while, I've felt that I didn't mention enough about some of the other critics (other than Lester Bangs) in that section, so hopefully it is now more complete. Since, I put more discussion of the Nuggets album into that section, I made slight contextual change at beginning of Punk aesthetic and subculture section (to compensate). So, I hope you like it, but if there are any teaks or additions you feel it needs then go right ahead. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Due to complexity of the edits, I had to superimpose out of my sandbox, but if you wish to see the history of edits, they are in my sandbox #2. With all of the the new extra text-space, I added a picture of the Ramones. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"é"
Tell me about wrong. AlterBerg (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The accent is shown as part of the original title of the track. Whether you think it's wrong or not, it is the title that was used for the track.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Untrue. The accent was never used on any of the band's recs (this in acc. with the proper use of the nickname, btw). It's gotta go. AlterBerg (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have an original 1968 vinyl LP sleeve in front of me, showing the accent. Just like this one (click on 'More images').   Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weird. Must've been an inaccurate one-off? Initially, Hendrix' LP had the title "Electric Landlady" on the sleeve. AlterBerg (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Awaken the Dragon
Are you sure I still can't convince you, or page stalkers to take part? Most of the active people at WP Wales are joining in. Between us I think we could start to get a lot done. I know you think it's a dreadful idea and will only produce utter bunk, but we really need numbers, contestants or otherwise to do something worthwhile here. If there is an article or two any of you might work on it would be much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you mean well, but you're not going to persuade me to write new articles (something I don't do very much at the moment anyway), on subjects that don't particularly interest me at present, and certainly not on individual buildings or sites which in my view generally don't "deserve" separate articles anyway. And certainly not in a competitive framework where people try to gain credits or (even worse) positions on the "main page" (which is an entity long overdue for total overhaul).  You don't "need numbers or contestants" to make anything worthwhile - you need people working in a collaborative exercise in their own time and in their own way.    As I say, I'm sure you mean well, but...   no.      Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough, I don't want to pester you but I just wish you weren't so quick to dismiss it when it was originalyy proposed. You didn't give it a chance.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)