User talk:Kate Mash

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page St. James Infirmary Blues has been reverted. Your edit here to St. James Infirmary Blues was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://iwentdowntostjamesinfirmary.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/porter-grainger-birth-date-discovered.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at St. James Infirmary Blues, you may be blocked from editing. Bingo bro  (Chat)  12:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
1 Regarding the bot reversion, when I have time I shall probably reinsert the link as I am satisfied it was to a reliable source, even though it was web-based.

2 Regarding the accusations that I am being disruptive and vandalising, I am attempting to improve both articles, and I have I believe succeeded, especially in terms of The Unfortunate Rake one. I have requested further information about the basis on which this accusation was made, in the hope of resolving this issue. Kate Mash (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Kate Mash.


 * I don't know if you're still following St. James Infirmary on Wikipedia, but I'm the one making the major revisions. I see that you're the source of the idea that this song was litigated to the U.S. Supreme Court, which it was not; it was a New York State case.  Bob Harwood (who I've been in touch with) came out with a new (substantially revised and expanded) edition of his book about the song in 2022.  Unfortunately, it repeats the erroneous claim that Mills won that lawsuit, when he in fact lost.     Pls LMK if you're still interested in this article, since there are other reversions I wouldn't want to make without discussing them first with you. Sprucegrouse (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is some stuff that should be dealt with. The ‘synopsis’ is still unsatisfactory.
 * I think it should mention that the ‘form’ is made up of embedded narratives. The first narrator sets the scene and introduces the 2nd character, whose voice provides the first person narration from that point on. It is worth mention8ng this as many St James songs follow the same pattern
 * It repeats an interpretation offered by A Lloyd, which is at odds to the actual wording of the 19th century versions of the unfortunate lad.  Lloyds Sing article is given as the source for material/ ideas not in that article.
 * for me the important point about the funeral request is that without it we would not realise that the man was a soldier, though presumably,y 19th century listeners would be well aware of the highly conrptoversial contagious diseases acts, which allowed officials literally to lockup woman suspected of being peostitutes, subject them to compulsory examinations and treatment and which were passed because venereal diseases were causing more illness in the forces than wars did. It was because of these acts that lock hospitals were opened all over the place, for women, and mainly in places where there were military/ naval bases. I personally think that this song was more or less a public health campaign. The early us writers called it homiletic. Excuse spelling here, or tablet. Tired and not too well.
 * if you Google contagious disease acts you will come across a short article on the national archive website that sums up the context and history of the lock hospitals. They literally were lockups
 * Enough for now.
 * looking forward to discussion of any ‘re versions’ you had in mind. Not too sure what a reversion is.
 * I note what you - and, now, Harwood, are saying about the us case Mills . thanks for this info. Appreciated.
 * Do read Richard Jenkins piece. He’s saying what I’ve been saying for years. Only more articulately and academically.  I managed to download a copy free, not sure where, might have been the EFS etc site.
 * Happy Xmas if we don’t ‘talk’ before. Kate Mash 21:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello
 * Just found this. I too have been in touch with Bob Harwood. Very interested to hear what you have to say on the court case. I have an edition of his book, and found it fascinating, though I was not sure that his argument relating to the relationship with St James was clear. That said, the best thing to come out for ages is the piece by Jenkin.  Harwood gave me a copy of a Lloyd article I had not seen and I sent him a copy of one he had not seen. I did not know he had a new version of his book out.
 * I may get it. I have seen that he has been in touch with Jenkin.
 * I think Lloyd probably wrote all the versions of 'The Rake' that he recorded. You can see which published versions he nicked bits from.
 * Happy to discuss ideas for 'reversions'. Thanks for leaving this.
 * I am not very well so cannot always respond quickly, so if we do try to work together please be patient.
 * Regards
 * Kate Kate Mash 00:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

November 2017
Thank you for deleting the rebuke. If you could suggest a suitable mentor for a new wiki person, I should be grateful. I cannot even find the list of mentors at the moment. In particular, I am thinking of editing the headings, as so much as been written on this song that it may be a good idea to include a 'historiography' section? Kate Mash 16:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Kate Mash

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default: Solution 2: Fix your custom signature: Solution 3: Do nothing:
 * 1) Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * 2) Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * 3) Remove anything in the  text box.
 * 4) Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.  (Do not click the red "" button, which will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * 1) Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * 2) Click the  button next to the error to learn how to fix the error.
 * 3) Update your signature to fix the error.
 * 4) Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.
 * 1) In accordance with a recent request for comment, all invalid signatures will be changed to the default, which looks like "Example (talk)", one month from now. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)