User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 7

Names
While thats its original literal meaning, it means "descendant of" in practical useage. For instance with O'Brien, the people who hold that name are "descendants of" Brian Boru. Before capitalism and communism, septs (family groupings) with specific kinship names such as that inhabited specific areas. Its different to surnames in some other languages, which may originate from job roles, "Smith" for instance and so on, rather than blood kinship. - Yorkshirian (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

 * New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
 * Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
 * News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Thanks for the fantastic link to Pytheas in Greeks in pre-Roman Gaul!  PHG  Per Honor et Gloria 10:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bluestonehenge
Hello! Your submission of Bluestonehenge at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Wpwatchdog (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Casuals United
Have a look at the recent IP edit. I'm sure you can get oversight if you want. Verbal chat  20:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's a load of them. Ho hum...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see you're on top of it. Good luck. Glad I don't use my real name :s Verbal chat  20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of me wishes I had never created that article, Its been problematic since day one! Yeah make sure that edit is removed via oversight. Contributers to a free encyclopedia shouldn't have to put up with personal attacks :-(  Francium12  21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

 * From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
 * Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
 * Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
 * News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
 * Dispatches: Sounds
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits without consultation of EDL wiki Article
Ghmyrtle insists on pushing his personal point of view on the EDL entry. It's obvious from his biography what his political views are (geography student, civil servant, interested in proto-anarchism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.138.124.202 (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn geographers, with their strong arm political tactics and powerful lobbying ability. Verbal chat  08:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What do we want? MAPS!  When do we want them?  As soon as possible in advance of the next committee meeting, please....   Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Stonehenge
I know most of us are treating it with the derision it deserves but at least 1 user appears to be taking the subject seriously so I don't suppose the powers that be would approve of its removal. Then again... (Talk Contribs) 09:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Commodores
Could I prevail on you to take a look at this article. I am in the process of trying to improve it - adding references (oddly, there were none before) and affiliated text. I know you have the Whitburn books - Top Pop Singles 1955-2002, and Top R&B Singles 1942-95; and wonder if you can verify the chart positions in the article. They are taken from Allmusic so they should be basically OK, but a more definitive second opinion will not go amiss. I trust you are well - thanks and best regards, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done (that was easy!) I've just added the one, "Jesus Is Love", #34 R&B, entered chart 20-12-80, on for 11 weeks.  All others look OK - haven't checked the UK positions.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

North-South divide(s)
Hmm. I agree a disambiguation page is preferable for the North-South divide in the United Kingdom article. I think references to Ireland would be more contentious because only part of Ireland is part of the UK. I see what you mean about the continued references to Scotland and Wales in that article, particularly in the "Existence" section. It was a bit sudden that the article changed anyway. An idea I had was to keep this article for general stuff but have several "see main article:" type sections for Wales, Scotland and England specifically. North-South divide in Ireland redirects to The Troubles which I thought a bit odd since The troubles is primarily a within-Northern-Ireland thing. Munci (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anglophobia
The crap I referred to was the nonsense added by an IP editor. Talk pages are not the places to leave stupid vandalism. If you felt a point was valid fine, add it to the talk page but edit warring to retain crap is frankly ridiculous as are pompous messages on my talk page. Justin talk 10:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when you're right, you're right. I was out of order with the pompous comment.  No excuses, I apologise unreservedly.  Justin talk 10:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can call me pompous if you want to get it out of your system. I've always tried to be pompous but can't quite get it right. Must be my working class upbringing holding me back. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stinking cold, which makes me more cantankerous than normal. Still its no excuse.  Justin talk 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations
I don't really have anything to add to my remarks on the article's talk page, where there was consensus for change. All the place names I removed are pronounced according to their spellings and to well established spelling rules.GideonF (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

EDL lead changes
Hi, regards the moving of the political bit in the lead, I have no issue with it, but others may want to reinstate it to the first sentence (this happened yesterday after you made a similar change). I was trying to avoid the whole "political" in the first sentence drama cropping up yet again! Any chance you can see whether it could be refactored into the beginning to satisfy the "consensus" version? I appreciate that it was a bit unwieldy but it was seen as generally acceptable. As discussed on the talk-page, there are still some issues regarding NPOV. Do you fancy chiming in? Cheers. Leaky Caldron  10:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers. It was reverted, just about at the time I was writing the above. Leaky  Caldron  11:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As above
From me, many thanks old boy for helping this to happen - much obliged. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

anglo/brit
Thank you for your message.

Words have more than one meaning, and it is not unreasonable to have different articles for both of those different meanings. It is correct, for example, to refer to white people as Caucasians, and it is also correct to use this term for people who actually come from the Caucasus. However, I don't think it would be right to attempt to cover both meanings in the same article. BillMasen (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if we were to follow your logic to its conclusion, we would have no choice but to merge the two articles. To have two articles covering the same concept (with different names) is a WP:content fork, and is not permitted.
 * If you are still against a merge (which is a very bad idea, in my opinion) I don't think we have any choice other than to seperate the two concepts into two articles. BillMasen (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm not able to respond more promptly. Internet problems.


 * You seem to be saying that, if we seperate two concepts into 2 articles, we are saying that one usage of the word is right and another usage is wrong. I simply do not agree that is the case. All over wikipedia, a word with 2 or more meanings is split into 2 or more articles. "Briton" is seperated into Britons (historical) and British people, and nobody disputes that both are correct uses of the word.


 * And, of course, we are required to make judgments about whether modern or ancient britons are meant in a text. I grant that this is much easier than judging anti-English vs anti-British. However, if a "anglophobic" text makes no distinction between English and British, then it is safe to say that it is "anti-British".


 * Something to ponder: by your logic, should Celtic nationalism be included in "anti-British sentiment"? It would probably be possible to find someone who used the phrase "anti-British sentiment" to describe Celtic nationalism. Or should we use our judgment as editors to decide whether the most salient idea in a text is pro-Celtic nationalism or Anti-Britishness? BillMasen (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I'm not being clear: my suggestion is simply that we put anti-British into one article and anti-English into another, without crossover. What the articles are called is a secondary concern, although I want to keep the term "anglophobia" because it is a real word and an acknowledged concept.


 * I don't think it usually presents any great challenge to decide which meaning of Anglophobia is present in a text. Can you show me some where you think it this is a problem?BillMasen (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps the answer is this: if there are citations to support both the view that X is anti-english and that it is anti-british, then we include it in both places with the appropriate citations. If Y is called Anglophobic but the whole emphasis is on Britain and not England, it should go in anti-British sentiment. Does that sound workable to you? BillMasen (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Slade
Probably outside of your interest zone, but I am starting to try to beef up the Wiki article. No great effort needed to improve it slightly, as it was without a single reference. Anyhow, if the subject matter does not greatly upset your sensibilities, all help is appreciated. If nothing else, a quick check on US chart positions for Slade discography would be a bonus. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Move
Could I ask your good nature to check The Move's US chart presence. Only "Do Ya" at #93 on the Hot 100 ? Allmusic is not forthcoming (unusually) so a full reference for inclusion purposes would be nice too. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

North-South divide (Wales)
I've been looking at this in more detail and I'd be interested in your views.--Pondle (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
Just for the record I haven't got a "line" on the lede, I'm trying to work it towards a conclusion that does not involve edit wars elsewhere or which ends up getting trapped into a sectarian position. I'm happy to accept that NI is different in some ways, but that does not involve embracing all the arguments. I'm going to put some options up later this evening (I am in the US) -- Snowded  TALK  22:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Tips?
Hello Ghmyrtle, do you have any tips for dealing with the kind of people that tend to edit articles like English Defence League, Casuals United, Stop the Islamification of Europe etc? I am losing the will to live with these articles? Francium12 23:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sino-African forum
Delete or correct ?please see Talk:Forum_on_China-Africa_Cooperation Yug (talk)  19:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mercia
I don't think I've ever seen an imaginary (grin) coat of arms before.Trilobitealive (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wales Map
Thanks for your comments on my Wales map. You are correct that to see all the names at large scale you need to view the map at full size. However, I have scaled the thumbnail so that the UA names are readable which I feel is a good compromise. I am against numbering as it requires the reader to continually scan back-and-forth to the key to work out what is what. If I get any more comments like yours I will consider changing the map though. But so far yours is the only one. XrysD (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerns
I'm concerned about this, which comes on top of and. We seriously need to challenge this editor's behaviour... I've posted the same message on the other recent "victim"'s talk page. Is a referral to Wikiequette noticeboard the best way forward? I didn't want to do anything without consulting those who've borne the brunt of his attacks. --Pondle (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Oppenheimer
"I intend reverting, so that these issues can be discussed properly." Sorry I don't understand you intend to revert what? -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me know if you run into difficulties with reverts of reverts. -- PBS (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI see User talk:DinDraithou -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your recent interventions on this topic. I really don't understand the messianic zeal that some editors have for removing Oppenheimer. Interestingly, critical discussion of his work in the blogosphere seems to be much more nuanced and nowhere near as virulent. OK, so Oppenheimer didn't train as a geneticist, but he's published extensively in the field, he's employed by one of the world's foremost universities, and his theories have been published in a book from a reputable publisher, a major British and a major American newspaper, and a high-quality magazine. This clearly meets the requirements of WP:V. The blurb on the back of his Origins of the British book indicates that his theories are taken seriously by a prominent archaelogist and a geneticist. Right or wrong, he clearly can't be dismissed as a mere 'fringe' figure. I don't understand why those editors who are claiming or implying that they have an expertise in genetics (possibly spurious) can't produce any WP:RS refuting him or simply stating clear alternative hypotheses. This surely can't be beyond the wit of man, especially an "expert" in the field. It all seems very strange.--Pondle (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, Ghmyrtle, I agree the picture will probably have a short life span. I agree you edits are alot more informative than what was there before but archaeo- was properly cited to a WP:RS and the fact that I could link it to the Catastrophe page does not change that. Anyway it was this edit that has peeved me. I know that I don't that own article - but I sure as hell ain't going to finish it either. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The British and Irish question
I am concerned about this at the moment. In practice as we know some of these issues, such as the anthem are minor. However its worth looking at what happened here. Irvine22 spun sideways from multiple edit wars on Irish pages. His/her pattern is to pick something, and then make minor editors on many pages designed to take a strong Unionist position. Then we get edit warring which leads to some bans. S/he then sits back for the term of the ban and starts up again. We have also seen him use "call a spade a spade" to accuse an editor of using racist language even though it is a common phrase in the UK and even part of a Wikipedia page. His/her original edit asking for the word not to be used was very general and not really obvious. When it was he immediately advised everyone that he was black, mortally offended etc. etc. and another editor got taken to ANI. We now have him claiming that he is not a Unionist despite the history, where he has clearly made a strong claim to a Unionist position. He demanded apologies for that as well, but backed off. He also uses IPs from time to time and has one sock that we know of.

If you look at this case it starts with provocative edit summaries, then he backs off, but seeks out British Watcher and asks him to engage, then sits back other than the odd intervention. We have here an intelligent editor with capability to be a good editor, but who seems to enjoy playing elaborate and provocative games. The tolerance level for him on articles related to the Troubles is zero, so now he is tackling Scotland and History of the United Kingdom. I suspect this will now extend into the British Isles debate and elsewhere. Now the only way to handle this is to follow the rules, engage etc. etc. (I know that). But we all need to be aware of the history here. No one wants to go back to the extended battles that took place in 2008, or at least no one who is not motivated by conflict. -- Snowded TALK  13:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mm-hmm. The other possibility is that I just think the anthem issue needs to be better handled over at the Scotland article. Irvine22 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many things are possible when you live in California, I just saw a whole herd of pigs fly past the window of my San Jose hotel on their way south for winter. -- Snowded  TALK  16:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How many countries have you edited from, Snowded? I've heard of taking a global perspective, but...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I have never worked it out, but I was traveling for 236 days last year so a fair amount and at some very odd hours come to think of it. -- Snowded  TALK  19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm off to Aberdare tomorrow - that's about as exotic as it gets for some of us! Ho hum... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we agree about the possibilities of California. Give me a shout if you're through L.A. I'll take you for a pint at a Rangers bar in Santa Monica! Irvine22 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be good (seriously) but I just pass through LAX on a one hour layover on my way to Singapore on Saturday evening. Next time ... -- Snowded  TALK  19:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A-ite. Irvine22 (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar
Polaris999 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Lonesome Sundown
This is a bit of a cheek. Could I ask you to take a look at 'my' new article, and see if it might qualify for DYK? Then, if you feel it does, could I ask you to nominate it (or whatever the terminology is). I don't have a clue - like with most things to be honest ! No offence (really) if you do not have the time, or think that it is not good enough. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Wallasey
Please take a look at almost any other list of Notable People in location articles; in what way is replacing redundant information and disordering the list an improvement to the article, please? Rodhull andemu  16:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a lot better now, although chronological order is out of step with other articles, Corsham, for example, and "List of people from ..." tend to be alphabetical. However, I can't get that excited about that. Meanwhile the link to your website is malformed and doesn't work. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  15:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

British and American spelling
The article Beunans Ke is being edited in American spelling and there is a statement on the talk page which uses the argument that the Cornish language being a United Kingdom subject does not mean that an article on a text in Cornish needs to be written in British English. Perhaps you could offer an opinion there.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I call on your diplomatic skills?
Hi Ghmyrtle, I wondered if you might like to take a look at the protracted low-level edit war about the opening line here (please see the history - it looks like this has been going on for months). I think a compromise form of words is possible, but I've been reluctant to intervene because I'm not an admin and given my history with these editors, I might not be regarded as an honest broker. Thanks.--Pondle (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Joe Duskin
Another new article from me - what do you think ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 07:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Folk rock
I came across this article recently and felt it needed a fair amount of work. It had been rated B in spite of the obvious deficiencies. Though I have some knowledge of parts of the range of music which can be called folk "folk rock" is not really among them, especially not outside the British Isles. The National section of the article is very uneven with a long account of Italy, but very little on the British Isles and Europe west of the Alps (except Galicia, Spain). Maybe you could review it critically: that might encourage some other editors to contribute.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review: I have no objection to the revert. This article was identified as problematic five months ago but progress was not being made till now. It now looks as if rating it at C is too high since there is a failure to describe the English folk rock pioneers adequately (Ashley Hutchings, etc. etc) This passage "Many performers influenced by Celtic music can be found in the nations of the islands with a strong Celtic past. Dropkick Murphys draw on traditional Irish music and punk rock. There are others in Wales, Cornwall and Scotland e.g. Runrig, the Battlefield Band." should perhaps go next to the related musicians described further up. (Moving Hearts, Dropkick Murphys need to be with other Celtic rock; drawing a boundary between this article and the Celtic rock article is not easy.) Oxford Companion to Popular Music (http://copac.ac.uk/search?rn=3&ti=oxford+popular+music+companion&sort-order=rank) would be a useful source of data.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Punk rock lede
I understand. Yes, there is an element of tautology to the phrasing, but the general feeling has been that protopunk is a worthwhile term (and link) to include in the lede. The current phrasing is about the least tautological we can arrive at--and keep in mind that protopunk is an unusually well-established term and concept, compared to such parallel coinages as protorock, protometal, etc.—DCGeist (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Swansea - possible edit war
Hi Ghmyrtle, as a geographer you may have a view on this pedantic little exchange and could perhaps help avert a rather silly edit war. My position is that as there is only one Swansea article, the statistics in question refer to "Swansea", and since the post-1996 LA inherited the city status of the former district and county borough, these 'disambiguations' are rather pointless, and probably POV.--Pondle (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you trying to help Ghmyrtle, but your recent edit to Swansea has made it even more ambigious! The City - is that the City and County, or the urban core (generally known as a city)??. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded at the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Having broken the duck, so to speak, I am on a roll (of sorts) with DYK. However, having landed Otis Grand today, I now have Joe Pullum, Little Mack Simmons, Sherman Robertson, Dave Specter, Smokey Wilson, U.P. Wilson, Eddie Shaw, George "Mojo" Buford and Larry Garner all sitting in a row - without a decent single hook line to promote any of them. It is a ridiculous ask but, if you have the time, could you cast your eyes over one/any/some/all of them, and see if any have potential at all. It is not a big deal. Frankly, I have had six DYKs since the end of November, so I can sleep well - if I ever remember where my bloody bed is. Kindest regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)