User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 8

Thanks
At what is an unbelievably bad time for me, your message of support was very much appreciated. Many, many thanks.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A friend
Is this a friend of ours? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Glamorgan
I'm working with FruitMonkey on a major effort to improve the Glamorgan article. There are lots of sources and I think that we can probably get this to GA relatively rapidly. I thought that you might like to help out, given your background in geography? Cheers.--Pondle (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup
Sorry. I don't mean to not encourage you. :) I spend so much time on this kind of thing that I forget that others are not familiar with the work. I think it's great that you're pitching in to help out with cleanup here. Nobody from the music project seems to have chosen to get involved, and you deserve all credit for your willingness to roll up your sleeves and help out. I'm sorry you haven't gotten response to your note on his talk page, but not surprised. Most people find this daunting, tedious work.

Basically, we are in better shape when we can locate and verify copying, because then we can compare the text to the original and see how extensive it is. When we can't locate a source that has been copied, though, we can't presume that the material is clean, because the contributor's record suggests it probably isn't. We know that for whatever reason he pasted content into dozens of articles. (AGF, with respect to copyright, doesn't mean presuming that there is no vio, but presuming that the contributor didn't intentionally violate it.) This is the opposite approach we take to one-off copyright investigations, where in the absence of a source that can be pointed to we typically presume that the content is free for us. Occam's razor slices in a different direction when the contributor's history shows extensive issues.

When a multiple article infringer is the original source of the article, it's usually necessary to act as though you are writing it from the beginning. Typically, when I am replacing a copyvio (which I can't do as often as I used to, because there's a veritable avalanche of them), I do fresh research, though I frequently will use the sources that had been located in the initial article. Going back to the drawing board means that we can assert confidently that the content is clean, because no creative content remains from the contributor. This is necessary too because, when an article is created as a copyright violation, it is usually replaced, with all earlier edits being deleted. We can't delete the earlier edits if we use any of the text supplied by other contributors. If we do that, we violate their copyright, because our contributors only license their material and do not make it public domain. :) For those reason, it's best not to copy over anything that was in the earlier versions, but simply check out the sources and write the new article as though the earlier version had never existed.

Looking at the temp version, I see the following:

This text is the same as the earlier version the article.

Quite likely, the first sentence was not taken from IMDb in a way that we can't use, but we can't use that text if we delete the problematic version. :) I don't know if the second sentence was copied or not. It was not sourced in the earlier version of the article, and while it isn't copied from the article you source, that doesn't mention Dominic Behan, and I don't know where it came from.

A lot of your rewrite does seem to be completely from scratch, which is good. Any other material contributed by him should be rewritten or removed.

I know this is a mess. It's a largely thankless job. And I do appreciate the time you've been putting into it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's an excellent rewrite. :) Remember that you don't need to feel a great sense of pressure. If you want to salvage refs on the ones that are foundational in a stub, you can expand at leisure. And with your input and that of one other contributor, I'll just revert the ones that aren't foundational, so the articles won't be lost, just set back a bit (hopefully not too much). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An interest we share. :) Though as I've said I don't have as much time for rewriting as I used to, I've replaced over 175 articles that were listed for copyright evaluation myself. By the way, I know your interests may be in specific subject areas, but if you develop a taste for this, we typically get a dozen or two articles every day tagged for copyright evaluation, in addition to the CCI lists. Some time back I tried organizing a project to attract contributors interested in helping with clean up of these: WP:COPYCLEAN. We have a few active members, but mostly in the "janitorial mop up" department like me. We could really use more contributors to do what you're doing: making sure that we retain as much information as possible for our readers. (A fair number of those articles don't meet inclusion guidelines anyway, but some of them certainly do.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! No problem. I'm grateful for what you've got time to do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A question
Is a line such as - Allmusic journalist, Donald A. Guarisco notes, "By his third album, Steve Harley had developed a strong grasp of how to combine his artistic ambitions with strongly crafted pop tunes.... The Best Years of Our Lives [was] the most successful album of his mid 1970s heyday" - generally OK ? This is within the larger The Best Years of Our Lives article, but I am asking more for general reference that specifics. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete Mayes
I know this is an imposition, but could you have a look at my first re-draft of this article at. It would appreciate your critique to see if I am on the right track (for once !?!) Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks great, and I've moved it to article space. Thanks for the re-write! Frank  |  talk  20:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Freddy Cannon
I do not wish to nit-pick, but the above article currently reckons Mr. Cannon was born in Lynn, Massachusetts and Revere, Massachusetts - which is quite a trick. Thanks for your work otherwise on this one. Oh, and before I forget, well done on Bluesology. Whilst attending to damn copyvio introduced by some idiot, and for some totally unconnected reason, I found my way back to the article again. It looks a proper job now - bravo.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Olympic Runners
You will see that this article, after my attempts at re-writing, has been returned to the mainspace. That's the good news; the bad is most of the text has been removed. I wish I had let you have a go at this one after all - to say I'm disappointed is putting it mildly.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK
I remember you told me you had put Bluesology up for DYK. Well, I have churned out two new articles in the past couple of days, as I needed some small respite from the copyvio stuff. These are Eddie Mapp and Willie Love - I have had them checked by User:Moonriddengirl too, just to make sure ! What I did not realise at the time, and it was only a few minutes ago when I checked on progress, the HUGE amount of cases awaiting processing. Your article has been there for nearly ten days (as you are probably aware). I do not think I would have bothered, if I had been aware of such a backlog. Hell - it is not normally like this, is it ? I hope you are well - oh, and if I had not mentioned it before, thanks for offering to have yet another go at The Olympic Runners. That one truly seems like a steeplechase ! Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It varies, but it usually takes a week or more to go from nomination to appearance as a DYK, so it's not that exceptional this time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You have not fallen out with me, have you ? I do not know why, but your response here seemed a little terse. Perhaps it is just me feeling fragile.  Either way, please tell me if I have erred, but in the meantime well done on getting Bluesology through to DYK status. I will blow my own trumpet, briefly, with my tag line for Son Bonds at DYK. Also, on a completely separate matter, in my grubbing about, I found this . I am too old to let this happen, but for the first time for a long time, a piece of music gave my goosebumps.  Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ghmyrtle! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Latimore (musician) -  .  Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Dick Waterman -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Ewan Anderson -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Herb Cohen -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Craig Doerge -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) H. B. Barnum -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) John Boylan (record producer) -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Doris Duke (soul singer) -  .  Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Follow-up on our conversation from last week MLauba (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything alright?
You alright Ghmyrtle? :) Jack forbes (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes! I didn't even consciously go on your page, let alone mean to edit it... finger slippage I think, sorry!  Must get another coffee..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No bother. I get lots of days like that. Jack forbes (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Chacksfield

 * Unexpected, but welcome anyway! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Good to see it made DYK. Actually, I see I forgot to let you know I'd nominated it so apologies for that. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A mystery
Can I ask you if you had any recall of recently editing User talk:Jack forbes ? I will tell you why when you reply. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lincoln Mayorga
Hello! Your submission of Lincoln Mayorga 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! Materialscientist (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Got any clues ?
I am trying to put together an article on Titus Turner. 1950/1960s R&B singer/songwriter - your sort of thing. Well, apart from Allmusic, have I drawn a blank or what. He wrote "Sticks and Stones", "Tell Me Why", "Leave My Kitten Alone" et al. I can find more info on my back garden shed; and I don't have one ! Can you help ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That British Isles thing
Thanks for your comment! I would consider missing Ireland a mere typo. Please if you see anything like that please change it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

RD re 'jackal'
Nice final riposte, but am I to assume you talk like Prince Charles. You did notice the spelling - jeckawl? Anyway, congratulations on your huge contribution to WP. best. Richard Avery (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Blind John Davis
Yes, me again. I have done some work on this article, which was a rescue from copyvio (not mine this time). I hoped to get it to DYK, but am unsure if the 5 x expansion rule has been met so far. (Incidentally, do you use the character counter?  It looks like Swahili to me). Could you have a look, if you have the time, and see if you can add anything. Mucho thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK error
Thanks for letting me know and very sorry about the error. The DYK Queue listed you and another editor for credit here, but neither of you wrote the article. I have given DYK credit to the actual main editor and apologize for the mixup. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

North-South divide (Wales)
Hi Ghmyrtle, it's been a long time since we discussed this, but there seemed to be a general consensus for a change of title. Unless anyone objects I'm going to make a bold move to Geography and identity in Wales and start making some radical changes along the lines we talked about many months ago.--Pondle (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Conurbation
FYI: I replied to your comments at Talk:Conurbation.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Otis Clay
I came across this article which is in need of expansion, and thought that it may interest you. I did a little 'brush-up', but Clay is not really my cup of tea. You have probably got more than enough to do, so I will leave it entirely up to you. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten this - just need a bit of time! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So I see - well done !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

thankyou
Thankyou for the advice specifically on Herefordshire links and writing on Wikipedia in general. It looks like there are several protections for Wikipedia content, and I fully respect that. Nothing more than naievety here - I just looked at the Tourism in Britain article, saw all the commercial links on it and thought I'd follow. On the Herefordshire page, the limited info on Economy has a cross ref to Bulmers and that page has several commercial weblinks. I'm sure that you are trying to clean up Wikipedia and good luck with this. I will make sure I try to follow Wikipedia guidelines in future. Best wishes, Robert Dewar (PS why do practically all contributors use a pseudonym? It doesn't breed confidence if articles, additions and corrections are written anonymously)Robert Dewar (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Blues
Hi, I wonder about asking you to think about reverting your recent deletion edit to Blues and tagging the contended essay to give the new editor time to correct his/her mistakes. See WP:BITE for my rationale in making such a request. Of course the call is yours to make and you're absolutely right to be concerned about OR but this place is hard for beginners to sort out sometimes. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I thought the added text was either an uncited copyright violation (but I couldn't track down a source), or poorly referenced original research.  It certainly didn't add anything of substance to the article, and appeared to be largely an opinion piece, albeit with a few unformated references.  I take your point about WP:BITE, but I left a friendly welcoming message and comment on the user's talk page, and hope they will respond.  So far, they haven't, and they have only made that one edit, but we shall see.  In the meantime, I see no point in reinstating their edit, but if there are particular details in their text that are worth including - if referenced - then I'd have no objection to having them inserted.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. That was one of the reasons I didn't revert it myself in that I'm not familiar enough with the material to be able to tell what is cut and paste copying. Have a good day. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Welsh art
Thanks, though I see a potted section on Welsh literature needs to be added to the other articles too. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It certainly does. Are you offering?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Chicxulub
Thanks for the sharp eye! I can't believe I've missed that all these years. Luckily I still had most of the original assets in Photoshop... I've uploaded a new version. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob Terry (Welsh Language)
Can you translate the Rob Terry page from english to welsh, please. If you cant dont worryYoundbuckerz (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Can you leave this message on the Welsh language one i cant because i have been banned from editing welsh wikipedia Youndbuckerz (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Want a laugh ?
Try reading Heimathaus Twist. Most of the article made me giggle, but 'Blues Mecca in the bog' was the real clincher. Just when I thought Wikipedia only gave me grief.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk rock
Hi Ghmyrtle! Thanks for the message. Yeah, it would be good if you could keep an eye on what I'm doing...collaberation and another set of eyes is always a good thing. :-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again! I just wanted to get your opinion on something. I've been steadily working away on the folk rock article and although I've still got a long way to go yet, I'm already foreseeing a problem with the existing article layout. I'm currently expanding the "Antecedents" sub-section but it's starting to get a little long. Initially I planned to split the "History" section into a few sub-sections but the more I think about it the more that I'm convinced that a single, overreaching "History" section with multiple hierarchical sub-sections isn't the best layout for this article. In fact, to have a section named "History" is a bit misleading anyway, since there are already subgenres and other global forms of folk rock listed outside of that section - meaning it's not a History at all.


 * Anyway, I'm thinking of restructuring the existing "History" section into multiple sections - each with their own sub-sections. If you click here you can see how the article menu might look with what I'm proposing. Bear in mind that the titles I've used in this example are just place holders and may not be what I ultimately choose to use but hopefully you can get an idea of what I'm planning. Of course, I won’t be implementing these changes just yet but as I expand the article over the next few weeks, I plan to create something like this. I just wondered what your thoughts are about this and whether you agree with me or have any suggestions? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Political Position of the EDP
Dear Ghmyrtle, Thank you for your communication. I am curious as to why the English Democrats is described as being 'Right-Wing' in the 'Political Position'. I see that there are three sources to the Political Position of the EDP, one of which does not exist, so there is in fact two sources, both of which are of little to no value. The first citation contains the opinion of a journalist, which from experience tend to have a political agenda, or are ignorant of the correct definition of 'Right Wing' and 'Left Wing'. The second citation is the opinion of what appears to be a 'flash in the pan' member of the party. As previously mentioned the third citation does not exist! These cannot be considered viable citations, so until there are citations of quality, why not just leave the Political Position blank? Under Wikipedia policy surely, reliable citations should be provided otherwise this weakens the credibility of Wikipedia. Regards Silvatici4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Ghmyrtle, Will you be so kind as to explain (in your own words) which of the Political Policies of the EDP are 'Right Wing'? As regards to your comment about the citation from the Daily Telegraph being more reliable than the other, well it maybe, but the report should still not be considered to be of good enough quality for Wikipedia to use to label a party. If it is then it is weakening the credibility of Wikipedia. Kind Regards, Silvatici4  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Ghmyrtle, If you have a 'reliable source' then reveal it! BTW, what is the procedure to appeal against someone such as yourself? Kind Regards, Silvatici4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Ghmyrtle, FYI, I have posted the following on the Admin page, I am not sure what happens next.


 * Dear Administrators, I see that the page about the English Democrats describes them as being 'Right Wing'. The only sources provided for this Political Position is:
 * 1) A link to an article in The Telegraph from 30 Sep 2007 about Christine Constable, but Christine Constable stood down and left the Party in 2008, please see the following link : http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/english-democrats/52891-christine-constable-steps-down-edp-vice-chairman.html
 * 2) A link to an article in East London Advertiser
 * In my opinion these are two very weak sources to use to label a political party. Until better sources can be found with which to label the Party I would like to suggest the 'Political Position' should be left blank. If something needs to be added to the Political Position shouldn't someone consult the manifesto and make an intelligent informed decision?
 * Yours faithfully, Silvatici4


 * Link to the English Democrats website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Democratic_Party#cite_note-1


 * I am aware that this has been discussed before, I have read it but I disagree that there was any agreement. Also I am surprised that any credible editor would claim that those two sources are of any value, and in my opinion using them makes Wikipedia, something which in the past I have held in quite high regard is actually 'tin-pot'.


 * Silvatici4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Ghmyrtle, I see the Political Policy has been edited, is this going to remain this way until we have more up to date and reliable sources?
 * Silvatici4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The description of the Party looks spot on now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvatici4 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Need Your Love So Bad"
I have been researching “Need Your Love So Bad” (Fleetwood Mac et al). The song writing credit has me going round in circles. Some sources cite Little Willie John, some his brother (?) Mertis John Jr., and yet others name both of them. This might not be a reliable source but …. I am asking a few Wikipedians, but have you any thoughts, before I go completely insane. No comments on that latter point please ! Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In my rush to get down to the pub this Friday evening, I posted the DYK for this song without acknowledging your input. I have asked a DYK regular, User:Materialscientist, to advise me how to add your 'co-authorship'.  I am determined to ensure that you have some rightful recognition this time. I am still smarting from the Titus Turner affair ! Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
When I die, forget it! Not asking YOU to do my funeral. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And my name is not Misortie! I have no idea why the hell I even picked that name, yet, can't help but wonder if it means anything in another language. I once, on the off chance, typed in “Dumbarton” here because I thought it sounded so Scottish and hey, it was a real place… --Frank Fontaine (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just going to think you were being rude then... --Frank Fontaine (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not rude, just frivolous. Apologies for any hurt feelings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, I just can't stand silence. Fills me with this uncertain dread...bwaha...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilfredselsey
Thanks for the welcome/ revert on my talkpage. I have been around on Wikipedia for about a year, keeping a low profile editing mainly Anglo-Saxon stuff with a particular interest in the AS history of where I live!

Thanks also for your comment on the AS Timeline, I had been unhappy with that Malmesbury entry but did not want to delete out of hand. regards Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I anticipate, from past experience, that other editors may yet wish to comment..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well we'll see. I think at least it's now being discussed on the talk page, so other editors can make their case if they want. It is supposed to be a timeline which is just a series of bullet points really, not a forum for developing arguments. I have been trying to give the whole thing a little more structure, as you may have noticed by decluttering the entries and a cleaning up of citations? Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as though you're doing an excellent job, but it is not an area in which I have any expertise - it is one of over 2,000 miscellaneous articles on my watchlist (and I have no idea how it got on there!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hum! 2000 on your watchlist, time for a cup of tea and a piece of cake I think! Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to you at my talkpage
Thx for the warning :). Left reply at my talkpage. Dylansmrjones (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Need Your Love so Bad
Hi Ghmyrtle,

Thanks for your comments. I should have used the sand box for this one!

My understanding of the Wikipedia rules, is that heading may be used if the text is long. On this page, the 'focused' text is short. Also the facts included are really a summary of the subject and therefore need no headings. Headings tend to interrupt text flow on short pages and in my opinon, can make the page un-encyclopedic and very high school. The Wikipedia rules do allow for flexability on this.

I have just made more edits inorder to focus the page on the song title and have removed the text about Mertis John Jr., as the page is about "Need Your Love so Bad" not Mertis John. I realise that he wrote it, but the facts deleted refer to the life of Mertis John and not the song. A link to a page about Mertis John Jr. would be cool and then a Wiki link could be made to cover the deleted facts.

Incidently I also notice capitals applied on all words in the title of this song. My understanding is that it should be "Need Your Love so Bad".

Please edit as you wish and it has been my pleasure to try and help you improve the page.

Best wishes and happy editing --Tunebroker (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm aware of it. I've noticed how far from the original this article has strayed. My edits have largely been fixing punctuation errors, overlinking and removing brackets from years, integrating them into the text. I also added a category, and I wasn't overjoyed to see Tunebroker revert everything I did. I do believe, though, that the composer credit section should not be in the same paragraph as chart info. It's a different subject.


 * With regard to the capitalisation of "So", it should be capitalised. If "so" were a conjunction, it would not be capitalised, but here it's used as an adverb. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I pretty much thought it looked fine at the beginning. I'm not a fan of removing the section headings, and I thought the wording was generally better on Derek's version. I was also OK with the piece on Mertis John himself, although he could probably sustain his own article. It does look a little thin now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info on Derek Bullamore. I have tried to make the page to the point, clearer and for me, less clumsy and more encyclopedic. Due to the small page size I felt it best to make the text an overall view of the song.

This song is mainly interesting from my point of view becuae of its connection with Peter Green and Fleetwood Mac. If they had not recorded it, I am not sure the song would have had so much interest, wonderful and a personla favorite as it is!

Due to the complication of the Fleetwood Mac version being released as a single before an album, isn't it chronologically best to incorporate this in the same paragraph as chart info? There is not enough on this song to be bogged down eith headings with only a sentence or two, that's my view. The brackets issue for years is another matter of opinion. Bretonbanquet is obviously an English language student, and I respect that. However, using brackets for dates of albums makes easier reading, especially when pages are long and full of album references. In the past I have been corrected by prolific music page editors for not using brackets.

The issue of the song writing credits is clearly stated in the text and the paragraph about Mertis John Jr. had no information within it to enhance the original statement, that he was the writer of the song. I feel that a separate Mertis John Jr page would benefit Wikipedia and the musicolgy within the Encyclopedia. In my view Wikipedia is also about being able to link pages, where appropriate, with Wiki links (without overlinking) and this is another reason for a seperate page on Mertis John Jr. For me this ensures more straight forward and succinct pages.

Thanks for the forum, I have much to muse on and am grateful for the interaction with other concientious editors.

Best wishes --Tunebroker (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to hijack Ghmyrtle's talkpage, but just on the issue of brackets for years - I don't see anything in the Manual of Style about them, and where years are mentioned in the MOS, they are integrated into the text. Encyclopedias are works of prose and should read like prose, not a bunch of notes. Brackets are inherently unconducive to easier reading. In any case, we had a mixed usage of brackets and non-brackets for years in that article, so it has to be one way or the other. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Goldcliff Priory
Many thanks for spotting that. You are, of course, quite right, as usual! Williams' exact words are: ".. a feature exactly paralleled today by the modern Benedictine foundation of Prinknash and its dependent priory at Farnborough whose monks wear white habits, unlike the black ones worn at Belmont, Downside, Ramsgate and elsewhere." I have now tried to clarify this in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Countries" within (two) countries
x2 --RA (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead
For the article opening, perhaps I could suggest Birkenhead, Wirral as a compromise. The Wirral article explains the situation.

I was surprised that the Letters Patent say "in the County of Cheshire" as they usually give the county or administrative area as it was at the time of the title's creation, not a historical county. Althogh there are no other Birkenheads, there was Baron Selwyn-Lloyd, of Wirral in the County of Merseyside (1976); Baron Hunt of Wirral, of Wirral in the County of Merseyside (1997); and Baron Sheppard of Liverpool, of West Kirby in the County of Merseyside (1998). I'll try to find out why they allowed Cheshire in this instance as the Garter King of Arms is usually quite pedantic!  J Rawle  (Talk) 23:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll change it to Wirral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you not write Cheshire (historic)? - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  07:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why link to an article that does not exist and which, I suspect, local editors are unlikely to want to create? "Wirral" is a clear and valid geographic description.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hollywood Argyles
Have you ever had a look at this article ? Frankly, I have never come across a Wiki page with so many references (none of which I have actually explored) but which overall is such a dog's dinner. I know Kim Fowley rivals Phil Spector and Jonathan King for 'pretend' groups and general lunacy. Equally the 1960s easily holds the record for the most argumentative decade as far as factual information, or subsequent bickering is concerned; but this page is almost unique. Every contributor (to date) seems to amicably disagree over the 'facts' - something of a first in itself !

I have cleaned it up a bit, and suspect that no one will get near the real 'truth' (verified or otherwise) after half a century, but it does look odd to me. Oh, I've just noticed - for completely different reasons - that Fowley's own article needs some attention too. Still, as per my earlier comparisons, at least he managed to avoid a lengthy stretch. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a lot of bad articles around. I was meaning to get round to Country Joe and the Fish, but was hijacked by the desire to get a DYK for "Take Me to the River" instead - amazing it didn't have an article before.  Let me know what you think.  Kim Fowley certainly looks like it needs a complete overhaul - I've just corrected one obvious (to me) error in it!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, your "Take Me to the River" article is first rate. No surprise to me that it will make the front page. Apart from that, but really well done because I know how much time and effort goes into these things, there is obviously much more work for us both ! Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)