This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Explanation and agreement? An explanation for that particular tag is not required. One look at the article and it's obvious something isn't right. The formatting is horrid. --Jennica✿ / talk 08:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
In your opinion. Please explain on the talk page what the problem is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I've never heard of that. When I'm tagging it, it doesn't prompt me for a reason. To me, all the articles I marked are glaringly obvious. I already fixed 50 or so articles from the same editor using this horrid formatting. --Jennica✿ / talk 08:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
To you, it may be obvious, but not necessarily to other editors. The changes to the text which you have now made are essentially trivial, in my view - I have no opinion on whether they make the article better or worse, but they certainly did not justify an unexplained tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
PS: If it is a problem with one editor's work, have you raised the issue directly with that editor (not me)? That would surely be a preferable approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I already raised it with the editor. I have nothing against you. I have put a statement on each talk page I added the tag to. What changes to the text are you referring to? --Jennica✿ / talk 08:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant changes to the formatting. I see you've raised it with the other editor - thanks. Please bear in mind that many editors are much more concerned with article content than with formatting, and where there are formatting issues they often need more explanation than simply adding a tag at the top of an article - or describing another editor's good faith work as "horrid", which is simply your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
That's the sad part about it. Their edits are pretty good but their formatting is verging on disruptive, in my opinion. Specifically on Black & White Records and here. Maybe I care too much. It is quite unconventional though.. and maybe it's just my opinion. --Jennica✿ / talk 08:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
If someone is routinely formatting in such a way that it creates problems for other users, such as accessibility, or is in contravention of a generally accepted MOS guideline, they should be told, and the issue explained to them. But a great deal of unconventional formatting simply arises from either an editor's ignorance of guidance, or from personal taste. In those cases, it is of no help to anyone - and indeed can itself be seen as disruptive - if tags are added to articles using words like "horrid" without providing some form of explanation of what the problem is. In the long run, it's much more important to ensure that good faith editors like that remain on the project, adding accurate (and sourced) information, than pissing them off by tagging articles to which they have contributed greatly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Diagram of the divisions of the UK
Can you please explain why the diagram is unnecessary and unhelpful?
I posted it on the talk page for a while to see what other people thought of it. We discussed it and I corrected some mistakes and improved it. After waiting a bit more I thought no one else had found anything else wrong with it, so I decided to edit the article to add it.
The whole reason I created the diagram was that I had trouble understanding how the UK is divided and the different levels of government, and wanted something visual to help understand it better without having to read all the related articles.
GarmTýrfingsson (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The administrative geography of the UK is extremely complicated, which is why diagrams tend to be avoided, and why an over-simplified diagram is misleading. I had missed the discussion taking place - but, allowing only a week or two over the Christmas and new year period is really not enough time to achieve a meaningful consensus. In any case, your diagram verges on original research. I'm happy to continue discussions on the article talk page or on a wider forum page (but not this talk page). Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, the Christmas period was not the best time to discuss anything, but because after adding the new topic some people answered right away, and then no one else said anything for a while I assumed it would stay that way and that no one else was bothered. I see I was wrong, and that edits on articles are checked much more than talk pages. Can you please elaborate about the original research and the oversimplification? (On the talk page, i won't write here anymore) I took all the information from wikipedia articles, which have their own sources and no original research I suppose. Also if something like this is accepted why not something more elaborate? England administrative divisions since 2009GarmTýrfingsson (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that one of the problems with your diagram is that it suggests that administrative functions are carried out at the regional level in England - which they are not, though all the other entities shown do have a functional role. So, the regions in England need to be shown differently - unlike the other entities shown, they are divisions that are now used purely for statistical purposes. Another complication is the increasing use of joint arrangements for some administrative functions. It's never a good idea to use Wikipedia articles as sources. But, I'll continue discussion on the article talk page rather than here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey GHmyrtle
I am new to this. I was Likki's husband. I have kept what happened to Likki a secret for decades. I felt in the spirit of accurate history her story should be told. How can I edit and have my statement available.
Please advice
Thank you,
Brian Lambert Hiddenstory (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hiddenstory: - Thanks for contacting me in this way. The best way forward, I think, would be for you to explain on her article talk page - here - what information you think should be changed or added to the article. However... Wikipedia essentially exists to summarise material that has already been published in reliable sources - such as books, magazines, reputable newspapers and reputable websites. If the material has not already been published - even if it is material that you know to be true - it will (or at least should) not be published here. Most experienced editors will remove unsourced material on sight, especially if it is about someone who is (or may be) alive - per our policy on biographies of living people. So, the best way forward may, in fact, be for you to ensure that whatever you think should be included is first published elsewhere. I'm sure there are ISB fan sites that would love to hear from you - and, from there, what you write could well find its way into other publications. Of course, that may take some time. But, as I said, if there are factual errors that need to be corrected in the article about Likki, I suggest that you explain what they are, on the article talk page. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC) (ISB fan from way back in the 1960s!)
I'm back (again) with another obscure blues Johnny (more probably a Willy) from back when. The draft article is in my sandbox. Does BARE cover him at all ?
Not in BARE - it mentions another Willie Harris (William Harris Jr., 1893 – after 1942, born in Mount Airy, Louisiana), who recorded for Brunswick Records 1929-30 - but I'm sure that is a different person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Not my Willy, that's for sure. Thanks anyway - I'll go with the small one I've got. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
[1]. But the frozen Rome fountain "gives no additional encyclopedic information", too. These photo is chosen, maybe, just because it more "european" that from Russia. English Wikipedia "means not anti-Russian". The photo depicts the real fact that the cold wave was in Eastern Europe, too. Where do you (or anybody) can find the photos which really related to article? --Brateevsky(talk to me) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
People in those areas (I'm not) will have to go out and take photographs that show the coldness of the weather. A photograph of a temperature display doesn't really add anything of interest, in my view (and apparently that of other editors). The photo in Rome was taken and uploaded by an editor there - if you can take photos of the scene in Russia, or other editors can take photos in Poland, Greece, etc., I'm sure they can be added if they are sufficiently informative and interesting. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand...But I don't know what photo can show the principal difference between –27 and, f.e., –8 (as now). The coldness, yes. I know only that in Russia, where temperature falls below –39 (?), the children don't study at school (some information boards on school building...) So there are few photos in this article. :( P.S. What about to create a category on Commons? Is it a good idea? --Brateevsky(talk to me) 21:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Press reports show plenty of "typical" pictures of snow, icicles, ice on rivers, etc.. If you are able to take similar photos, I'm sure that one or two would be suitable. And, yes, a category would be good. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Hellas-Greece name
Note that I wrote "Hellas (Greece)" and other editors reverted me and used only "Greece" even though I tried other ways to solve the dispute such as using "Hellenic Republic (Greece)" or "Greece (Hellas)". Thus it was other editors who reverted me. Because I feel offended by this anti-Hellenic behaviour and I perceive it as an attack on my ethnicity I will not continue editing on Wikipedia and leave the project. Please see the sources I added in Name of Greece if you want to know more about the name issue. Thank you. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course, I can understand why you or others might find it offensive. But, that is not the point. As long as the majority of reliable English sources use the word "Greece", so will Wikipedia. As others have said, we are not here to right great wrongs. Nevertheless, we can all make useful contributions to the world of knowledge, and I hope that you will continue to do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for practical reassurance to new users
A quick thank you from a new user for your recent editing help on Deddie Davies' page and especially your welcome message as I found Wikipedia very daunting and was frankly very worried about upsetting any editors by making a mistake. Best wishes
Edna'sLaw (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The vandal keeps changing the population - is it now possible to get protection for the page from IP users? Because I will soon stop bothering reverting. Sumorsǣte (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not vandalism, it's a content dispute. You need to make the case on the article talk page and then, if the IP continues to edit the article without responding, seek page protection. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This is one you "gave" me to have a go at. I actually found his BARE entry online, so it is not the usual question. This time I am asking if he had a US R&B hit with "You Better Believe It" (1956), or even, "Mary Helen", in the same year. The source reckons he did, but your book might say differently. Thanks,
No, nothing at all in Whitburn. Which source said he had chart hits? It's possible that he reached the charts in Cash Box but not Billboard, of course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
This reference claims “Mary Helen” and especially “You better believe it” (entering the Top 100 R & B) were small hits. I had my doubts, but citing the Top 100 R & B seemed vaguely plausible. Perhaps it was Cash Box (but did they publish a Top 100 R&B chart in the 1950s) ? Never mind, I will tone down the wording in the draft article and go with that. Thanks again,
Billboard didn't start a Top 100 R&B chart until 1973, so it's not clear where Gérard Herzhaft got his information. Best to ignore any mention of chart placings, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Ta - Slim is now up and running on the mainframe. Equally, one might wonder where Herzhaft got his info from for his Encyclopedia of the Blues (University of Arkansas Press, 1997), which I have used regularly elsewhere as a "reliable source" ! As with BARE, I can not help but wonder if you and I could do a better job on writing a blues tome. Easy to criticise others, of course, but ....
A couple of recent, unreferenced edits, to this article suggests she was born Patricia Valerie Jenkins. To be honest, the cited reference in the article is, at best, weak. Can you track her correct birth details down, based on this ?
It is a weak source, but better than no source at all, so I've reverted the change. Haven't found anything more so far.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Aha! There was a Patricia V Jenkins, born in Edmonton and registered in the second quarter of 1936 - and someone of the same name married a William G Murtagh in Battersea in 1956. So, it all sounds plausible. But when did plausibility trump (sorry- bad word) verifiability? Perhaps it's best if I revert myself and add a [citation needed] tag?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I notice in The Avons article that it states that Elaine Murtagh, and said Valerie, were sisters-in-law. However, there is no reference to back this up. Nevertheless, it adds a bit more weight to your double-quick work. Mind you, that only accounts for two of the seven little girls sitting in the back seat. What were they sitting in anyway - a bloody tight fit if it was a Mini !
This looks like a decent source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Well found. I have edited The Avons and Elaine Murtagh articles accordingly – I see you have done Valerie's. Bravo. I have been thinking about it further. There was Fred as well. Quite a palaver with eight of the buggers squashed in the rear. Was it this Fred, or this one or even this high-flier ? Too much time on my hands. Cheers,
I am about to write about this banjo player. Does your book say if "Dink" is his actual first name? It very well might be; I just never heard of anyone called that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
He's not mentioned in BARE - sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
But, was he James Dink Roberts, September 15, 1894 – August 30, 1989? Someone of that name, SS number 243708434, is recorded in North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. North Carolina Death Records, 1968-1996, Raleigh, North Carolina. I can access those details through my Ancestry.com subscription - it's a public record, but I'm not sure whether you would want to use it as a source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Most likely, I typed in that full name and this source [2] talks about the banjo player I am writing about. The public record is still useful because that is the only one to give specific birth and death dates. Thank you!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Ilovetopaint has made a recent addition in parenthesis ("sometimes called "garage punk") ") to the lead sentence in the garage rock article. While I have no theoretical objection to the new wording, I just want to pass it by you to see if you're OK with it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I added the term "'60s punk" to the parenthetical phrase, because it too is a common alternate moniker. However, if you don't think there should be a parenthetical phrase in the opening sentence, you are welcome to remove it and return the statement to its older form that had been there for a long time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I really don't have a strong opinion on it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, just another little brief. Since the statement about the first use of the term "garage bands" was mentioned twice--both in the Milieu section and in the Critical recognition sections, I replaced that statement at the Milieu section with something to the effect of "bands in the genre are often referred to as 'garage bands'". Then I made sure that all of the parts of the prior statement (at Milieu) are properly included to the bottom of the Critical Recognition section--it's all there. I did this because someone renamed the Milieu section "Milieu and etymology". However, the Milieu section never really discussed the origin of the term "garage rock" (only "garage bands")--Milieu mainly describes the socio-background and characteristics of the genre--it never really focused on etymology. It was always the Critical recognition section that went into full detail about the etymological history of terms. So, after making sure that everything was included in the Critical recognition, I then changed the name of that section to "Critical recognition and etymology". I'd imagine you'd be OK with these small changes. I just thought I'd pass it by you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Not trying to speak for Ghmyrtle, but I do not think he is nearly as invested in the article as you so it isn't really necessary to alarm him to changes. I'm sure he has it watchlisted anyways if he wants to keeps tabs on it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but I still believe in touching base for certain changes, particularly ones that may be of concern to him (he has been involved in the article for a much longer time that me--I don't take that fact for granted). Keep in mind that it was he who originally put the reference about "garage bands" in the Milieu section, if you remember. So, I felt I owed him the courtesy to let him know that when I replaced that statement, that I made sure that all of its contents were properly transferred to the Critical recognition section down below. That is what you call communication. And, I hope my message will save him the trouble of having to comb up ad down the edit history to find what he may want to look for. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, I don't want to bother you with details of the GR article, but made a slight trim in the British counterparts section (where it said "Many groups formed to perform this music in local venues – according to Bill Harry, the Liverpool area alone had some 300 performance venues and 500 bands by around 1961, though this intensity was not replicated elsewhere in the country"). If you wish to, you are welcome to restore the its previous wording. But, I am in the processes of making numerous reductions in all of the sections, and to keep things proportional, I have make trims in British counterparts like everywhere else. I'm just trying to satisfy the consensus to trim the article. I'm sure you understand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. That statement is already in the article on beat music - which I think is an article that needs to be greatly developed. It's been something I've been meaning to get round to for years, before being diverted into other areas. If you're interested in helping, feel free to start editing it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be delighted to help there. Once I get through with some of the issues at the GR article, I'd be happy to lend a hand. Another article I noticed needs a lot of help is Indorock. Perhaps we could help out there when there's some time. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
You probably noticed that I removed the Syndicats and the Renagades from the UK counterparts section as part of the ongoing "austerity programme". I'm sure you don't mind. On the topic of austerity, I'm curious to hear what you think of Trump being in office? We may all be rationing metal wrappers in preparation for war with Mexico and Iran (and possible WWII) soon. Should I spend my tax refund to buy gold? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Lost City of Trellech
I have already submitted a formal complaint to the Washington Post for their gross inaccurate reporting of my findings at Trellech. Repeating them here does not make an inaccurate report any more accurate, so I will continue to change the relevant material on wikipedia so that it reflects reality. I can hardly have been discredited by archaeologists since there are many reports by professional archaeologists that have worked on nearby housing development sites in and around Trellech that have all verified my theory and directly contradicted the University of Wales theory of Dr Ray Howell that the settlement existed mainly in the village. Several academic papers have been written about my site over the years and Stephen Clarke, arguable the most experienced medieval archaeologists in the country has written a paper summarising his work and completely vindicating mine. Nancy Edwards was quoted in the Washington Post in a way and following a quotes by David Howell that suggested she was discrediting my work. Nancy has confirmed in writing that she had simply told the reporter that she knew very little about Trellech and that he should speak to Ray - hardly a discrediting statement. All of the discrediting statements have come ultimately from the same source - David Howell. He has taken the fact that I proved his father's work (Ray Howell) was incorrect as a personal offence towards him and is making statements that simply do not fit reality. He happens to be a lecturer at Cardiff University and guess what criticism comes from that university. Why? Because the same source has told the people there the same untruths. When I spoke to their society in the autumn I referenced several publications. Their recent quotations show they have clear ignored them; think that to criticise an academic is to belittle - it is not, it is just good science and are clearly on the defensive trying to protect one of their own. The university has also implied that York University is handing out fake degrees in a desperate attempt to discredit me. Ray Howell also stated in a journal in 2006 that I was wrong because the the Times newspaper made a spelling mistake (they spelt burgages as burbages). The discredit attempts are happening because of one man's personal vendetta against me because I dared challenge the established view that his father proposed and having no way else to turn since the evidence is overwhelming in my favour. So you stating that I have discredited by academics is very far from the truth.
Regarding the second part of interfering with other excavations. As I told the reporter I went onto Ray's sites after he had left without his permission to check his results. What I found was a wall he claimed to be medieval was in fact cut from the modern day surface, i.e. it is a modern feature, probably a field drain. To check others work is good science, it is just unfortunate that I had to go to those lengths to do so. The implication from your sentence is that I was damaging archaeological sites, I was not. You also fail to mention that the same field was subsequently dug by two independent professional units, who verified my initial findings and contradicted Ray Howell's work. Their findings are published in the Historic Environment Record held by the Gwent and Glamorgan Archaeological Trust based in Swansea. I referenced that in my changes on the wikipedia page. Your removal of that sentence is a clear attempt to censor that information and will not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.120.83 (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I understand your concerns. No-one is trying to censor anything - I was simply trying to summarise, in good faith, what had been reported in what is usually considered to be a reliable source. Now that you have explained your position and the fact that you have objected to the publication, I'm content to let your wording stand, tweaked a little for formatting and with a reference to the Post article as an external link rather than as a reference in the text. Of course, if and when your objections are published or the Post publishes a retraction, we can reconsider the article text then. I will copy this exchange across to the article talk page, which is where further discussions should take place, and other editors may wish to comment there. Perhaps you are aware of it, but I'll just remind you of policy on conflict of interest editing - in particular, not seeking to edit what I assume is your own article. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your understanding. I understand the issue of conflict of interest being a councillor. However I will not stand by and see things about me and my work put online that are wholly unjustified. So if that means I need to break the rules of wikipedia to defend rightly 15 years of work, then so be it. I have seen your changes to the Trellech page and will not make any further changes. However I have made changes to the page about myself. There they claimed that I had found more than reality. I am equally not happy about overstated claims about what I have found, so I have changed it to things I actually have found. A brief read of what they claimed I found is obviously false; a golden chalice - oh yes if only I were so lucky, a welsh totem - I did not know the Welsh had totems, I thought that was Canadian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.120.83 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) One is often able to "find more than reality" on the pages of Wikipedia, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Heron
Have you heard a new book, written by Mike Heron, about the ISB is going to be distributed in April? It is called In the Eye of the Heron, and I am so excited for it! Unless I am wrong, wouldn't this be the first book written by a member of the band? Maybe Robin will join in and publish a book in a few years too.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe someday. Though when I spoke to Robin last year he didn't mention it...... (!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I am a little puzzled by the BARE entry I managed to look at online, as to his birth name. I understand that his mother re-married, apparently one of Arthur Crudup's brothers, and thus his surname may have changed at that time. However, Crudup that does not allude to either Washington or Quattlebaum. Given the more than unusual surname he ended up with, can you dig around and see if you can find anything more definitive for me ? His draft article in my 'eggbox' at the present, awaiting a final polish before he gets promoted to the mainframe. Nevertheless, a bit more clarity on his name(s) would be good. Muchas gracias,
I'm even more puzzled. The easiest option would be simply to ignore the "Washington" name, which isn't explained in BARE and I can't find mentioned anywhere else. There's also an issue over his birth year. BARE gives 1927, which is claimed to be "based on the 1930 census" but that "1929 has also been reported". However, when I look at the 1930 census forms (via Ancestry.com) it clearly gives an Elijah Quattlebaum, aged 1 year and 3 months (living with his aunt and uncle, not his parents), which matches a 1929 birth. Also, both his Social Security application and his death record give his birth as Jan 22, 1929 - so, I don't understand where BARE got 1927. Stefan Wirz gives 1929, as does this. There is a 1945 record of him as Elijah Quattlebaum Smith - his mother Maggie Quattlebaum married Fread [sic] Smith. Later records give him as Elijah Douglas Quattlebaum. Perhaps the BARE authors discovered that his father's name was Washington - but, that doesn't appear in any public records that I can find. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligent research. I am tempted to ignore BARE then, and go with 1929 and miss out the Washington bit altogether. Do I assume that Douglas was a later 'addition' to his name ? How is Crudup's brother known as Fread Smith. Anyone would think that people were having it away William Nilly. Not for the first time do I ponder how Trump's lovely people ever kept count of who was who in the Land of the Free. Cheers,
I've no idea what the Crudup / Smith connection - or lack of it might be - sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. Well, the article is now up and running for all to ponder over. I am not expecting an avalanche of interest ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
One of those you "gave" me. I think I got what I could from the online version of BARE, but not his full middle name - assuming it is not just P. Also, despite a decent look around for sources, I am none the wiser as to why he is nicknamed "Birdlegg". Maybe I am missing something, apart from a few marbles of course, but it seems an odd one to me. Can you throw any light on either query ? Ta,
There's a quote from him on his Facebook page here - "After 40 years of questions about my name,and its origin, I ask my inquirers to just think about the question they asked me about how I got the name "Birdlegg"!!". Sorry..... I'm none the wiser. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, clear as mud. Perhaps his legs were as skinny as a bird's, but why the double G ? Or a reference to getting said leg(g) over a .... Thanks for your efforts, as ever. I go with what I've got tomorrow; another masterpiece which may attract a dozen viewings, or so, in the next few months. Sleep well. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
English/British explanation
As an inhabitant of the British Isles, could you please explain to me the proper usage and distinction of English/British? After some research, I was under the impression that referring to someone who is English as British is like saying a Canadian is North American. Why, for instance, is Simon LeBon and Adam Ant not British musicians, rather than English? Terry Foote (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
They are both British and English - legally of British nationality, and English by birthplace and/or because they have identified themselves as English. There is absolutely no simple "one size fits all" answer to this - some people strongly identify as British, while some people strongly identify as not British but rather Scottish, English, Welsh, etc. There are guidelines at WP:UKNATIONALS that are worth reading. In the case of politicians whose notability comes from their roles in the UK Parliament and government, it's best to refer to them as British. The most important guidance here is never to change "English" to "British", or vice versa, without first checking how they are described in reliable sources and, in possibly contentious (i.e. very many) cases, raise the question on the article talk page first before making any change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Please, in all sincerity, help me understand this distinction. Apparently you are an inhabitant of Great Britain, so you're more qualified to answer this that I. I did some researching on this and found that it's more correct usage to refer to someone who is English as exactly that, rather than British. For instance, if you look up say Adam Ant or Simon LeBon or Mick Jagger, they are all English musicians, not British ones. Now, are Winston Churchill and the others referred to as British because they were rulers of Great Britain? Thank you Terry Foote (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
If your research found that "it's more correct usage to refer to someone who is English as exactly that, rather than British", you clearly haven't researched enough because it's not true. Churchill, etc., were not "rulers of Great Britain" by the way, they were merely political leaders in the United Kingdom. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you this has been a most enlightening discussion. Your messages just emanate Wikilove. (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you going to go through my entire edit history? Good luck with that. Terry Foote (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No. But, if you make problematic edits in one place, it's normal practice for other editors to check whether you've also made problematic edits elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Bobby Freeman
The source used in sourcing the birth date said he died! If the sources aren't reliable, then why is that source, which says he is now deceased, still in the article? -A ladinsane(Channel 2) 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure which source you mean - his birth date is attested in many sources. Anyway, things have now moved on - this seems a much better source, with family details, and date and place of death, so I've updated the article accordingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking this one:[1] but now it is a moot point, anyway. -A ladinsane(Channel 2) 16:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a moot point - but, that source doesn't say that he had died....... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"is best remembered" would say "is best known". -A ladinsane(Channel 2) 23:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily - it simply recognises that his career was in the past. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
By that reasoning, you could have "John Deacon is best remembered for being the bass guitarist in Queen..." Well, he's still alive, but that sounds weird to phrase it that way. I suppose that wouldn't explicitly state that he had died, but it sounds strange enough to use it for a living person that it strongly implies that the person had died. -A ladinsane(Channel 2) 16:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're persisting with this conversation. There is no way that site was aware that he had died, given the difficulties the rest of us are having getting information. If they had the information, they would have been more explicit, rather than merely using the past tense about someone whose best days were long ago. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Rock music, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Shearonink (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I was randomly hopping through articles and found out Axelrod died on February 5th (!?) [3]. By a strange coincidence, I picked up Mass in F Minor the day he passed away without even knowing the news! I think it would be worth expanding his page and some of the new sources should help. It's something I intend to get into after my work on Washington Phillips is complete.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The first one of his that I got into - many, many years ago, probably around 1971 - was Release of an Oath - which I still love, along with several of his others. Looking at that bio page again today, it certainly does need significant improvement. I've mentioned, on the talk page there, a query about his birth year - both 1933 and 1936 have been stated in the past, but his family have apparently now confirmed it as 1931. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
I want to offer my deep apologies for my snippy reply to your post on the RD/E. It has been a crummy day and I let the spill over into my post. You did not deserve that. I hope this cupcake will make some amends but I will understand if it does not. MarnetteD|Talk 02:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As to your question I have been wracking my brain as it rings a bell. I heard Snidely Whiplash say "Curses, foiled again" so often as a kid. I wonder if the Rocky & Bullwinkle writers might have thrown "cubed" in just once to change things up. Maybe another editor will track it down but until then I'll leave this for you
Curses cubed!
Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the cupcake!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome. This morning Danger Mouse (1981 TV series) popped into my memory but even that is still 10 to 20 years to late to be where you might have heard the phrase. MarnetteD|Talk 14:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking for a citation
I was wondering if you could help me find a citation for a statement in the Garage rock article that appears in Direct antecedents ("Some young people were still inspired by musicians such as Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, and Eddie Cochran, whose recordings of often self-written and relatively unsophisticated and hard-driving songs from a few years earlier had proclaimed personal independence and freedom from parental controls and conservative norms"). Someone put a tag next to it. I remember you had added the statement back in July of 2015. I like the statement a lot, and everything it says strikes me as being fundamentally true. However, I notice we never got a source, and there may be pressure take it it out to if if we can't find verification. I'd like to keep it in there, if there is a way. I was wondering if you'd be able to help me track down the reference. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes - I see the problem and will try to find something. Try these for starters - [4] (looks like an interesting book), [5], [6], [7].... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I recently made an article about this gospel group. Sources say the Trumpeteers' take on "Milky White Way" sold over one million copies. Could you check if that charted in 1947 or 1948. I feel like that many sales would appear on some national charts but I haven't found anything to back that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a couple of sources, so will edit the article from them. The claim about selling over a million copies certainly needs a "reputedly", but "Milky White Way" did reach #8 on the "Juke Box Race Records Chart" - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I had a hunch they charted somewhere, thank you. It's really baffling the amount of doo-wop and gospel groups that still need to be written about. What's more surprising, for me, is when I discover groups that originally recorded well-known songs, like the Trumpeteers did (technically the Coleman Brothers but still).TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion needs to be closed by someone uninvolved, and the article moved by an admin, I believe... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Bertrand Russell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Apollo The Logician (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you remove this warning. I have not reverted your latest edit, even though it's against the established consensus wording, and your behaviour is clearly edit warring. You are persistently and disruptively seeking to re-establish the wording which you changed unilaterally on 25 February in these edits, which no other editors on that article have so far supported. If you're not blocked, we could of course go to WP:RFC or some other forum to resolve this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
When you have a spare five minutes, could you see if you can work your magic and try to unearth a birth date for Barry St. John. She, yes I know, was seemingly born Elizabeth Thompson in Glasgow, Scotland, possibly c. 1943. A very minor hit maker in the late 1960s, she also sang backing vocals on The Dark Side of the Moon, amongst plenty of others. I could make a joke about the difficulty of singing in a black-out, but I'll desist. Thanks,
My five minutes is up..... Sorry, can't do any better than "c.1943". Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
PS: I've just noticed that Allmusic, with characteristic attention to detail, refers to St John as he throughout..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that most reliable of reliable sources, eh. Meanwhile IMDb.com continues to be shunned as such, despite the fact that the BBC, no less, regularly refers to it as a source on their TV gameshow, Pointless !
I appreciate the whole GA/FA thing isn't your bag, but I know we share an interest in Monmouthshire articles. The Bridge is now at GA, and I want to take it to Peer Review, prior to FA. Your input, particularly at the latter stage, would be very welcome. KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Roy Hamilton page
Thanks for reverting the bot edits for the Roy Hamilton page. I appreciate any advice you'd be willing to give.
No problem. Just keep adding your sources when you add information, and if necessary other people should come by and format them correctly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, the above named died recently. I know sometimes you use such a trigger to write an article, so I thought I would ask if you intended doing so ? If not, I might have a go, or not as the case may be. Don't suppose he was in BARE, or had a R&B hit (possibly with the Rhythm Ramblers, a Silas Hogan-led group) ? Cheers,
No, I was going to leave him to you! He is in BARE - when you go to your trusty sandbox I can add the details if you like. Can't find anything in Whitburn. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Tres bien - I'll have a bash in me eggbox. Think there should be one of those sloping things on the 'e', but I can't be arsed. Don't tell my wife though, she's half French ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you take a look at my efforts before I go live. I think some of the wording may be a bit clunky but, you know how it is, you sometimes can't see the wood for the trees when 'reviewing' your own work. Ta,
I'm having a little trouble here: some sources put Covington's birth place in Louisiana while others claim it's Georgia or Alabama. I am leaning more toward Louisiana because it is in Gayle Dean Wardlow's book Chasin' That Devil Music but I was wondering does BARE have anything to say? He also went by Ben Curry and Bogus Ben Covington if that helps.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
According to BARE (p.112), he was born in Columbus, Lowndes County, Mississippi. But, I would say that Wardlow is often at least as authoritative, so maybe the article should mention both possibilities (and even others). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh good, another source [13] also puts him in Mississippi. I'll mention both possibilities, thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, she does - but it's more confusing than helpful. It gives her birth as "about 1885", in Virginia, but also refers to a 1930 census record which gives her age as 42 (hence, born 1887/88), and her place of birth as New York to parents from Virginia. But, following that up, I find a record for a Lavinia Turner, born December 28, 1888, in New York, making a social security application in 1937. So... I've tweaked your text a little, but if you want to rely on BARE as you should (rather than on me!), you should treat my edits with a little caution. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
From my somewhat limited, but nevertheless detailed experience, I also take dear old BARE with a little caution. For example, this does not fill one with complete confidence. Otherwise I think your wording rather mirrors mine with "probably"s, "definite maybe"s etc., as obviously nothing is crystal clear certain in a case such as this one. I'll have another tinker with the draft and call it a wrap - there is only so far one can go with any degree of confidence for subjects such as this ! Many thanks for the help thus far.
Or, if you like, Fannie May Goosby. Either way, it is a bit of Fannie. Does BARE have anything to say, 'cos I'm really struggling for biographical information, although the recording side of things seems dandy. Thanks, as ever,
BARE (p. 509) mentions Fannie Goosby, possibly born in Pinehurst, Georgia, 1902 - last reported in New York about 1934. Not much help really. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. After much deliberation she is to be posted here as 'Fannie May Goosby', as this seems to be the more common spelling. I may leave these really obscure blues boys and girls alone, as they appear to cause me more grief in researching them than seems worthwhile. All Fools' Day today, of course, and it feels like it is me that is the real fool !
Here's a memory test. Do you recall, by any chance, what I recently stated above. Well..... Ida May Mack flew passed my window and I found a potential plethora of puerile padding – sorry, but it's already copyrighted by me – on this obscure dear old gal, who seemingly recorded eight tracks in 1928. Is BARE any help here, before I go gaily giddy again ?
The cricket season is upon us (hurrah), and it is Headingley for me and mine on Friday. You'll probably be glad to hear that I will shortly phase in, and out of Wiki duties, for another five months or so.
Sorry, BARE doesn't seem to mention Ida May Mack at all, surprisingly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Ida May is up and running, with the sadly oh so usual "nothing known about her life outside of recording" stuff. Thanks for looking for me - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Her article only had the one, multi-reference (AllMusic) before I had a go at it. But, the birth and death places are not really referenced, and I suspect she should be in BARE. When you have five minutes could you please oblige. Ta,
Dear,
Shafeeq Gigyani is prominent socio political figure of Peshawar, Pakistan. You can simply find citations and other information from Google. Please write an article on him.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.67 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't know if you're going to be out and about this weekend but I'm looking for a few Chepstow-area photos for the Grade II* listed buildings in Monmouthshire list. There are quite a few missing but what I really need at present are:
Mounton House - a good photo of the front
Moynes Court - both the Court, and the Gatehouse
St Pierre - a photo of the Gatehouse and accompanying range, from the front, not the church side
Raglan Lodge and No.14, Beaufort Square, Chepstow.
None of the above can be found on Commons or Geograph, which tends to suggest they may be a bit inaccessible? I think Mounton may have been converted into flats. Moynes is definitely private, although the gatehouse can be rented. Do you have to play 18 holes, at vast expense, to get into St Pierre? The Beaufort Square two must be available, but no one's taken them. Any, or all, would be much appreciated if you have time and inclination. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Mounton House and Moynes Court are both private properties, accessed via driveways I believe, so photographing them is not easy without some reason to be there. St Pierre in general is perfectly accessible, but I'm not sure about that particular angle, and I've no plans to go there at the moment. Raglan Lodge and 14 Beaufort Square are adjoining properties. I've taken some snaps there this morning, and plan to write a brief stub about Raglan Lodge when time permits. It's recently been refurbished, and there is more information here. I don't think I have any information about number 14, but certainly should be able to upload a photo. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Much appreciated. I feared long, private, drives might be the reason no one had shot them. The same's true of Tredean, at Devauden, where you can just see the little Tudoresque lodge, and Shirenewton Hall, where only the, rather impressive, gates can be seen. No.14, which I think is next to Raglan Lodge, appears listed mainly for a medieval hall in a shared basement with No.13. Not sure that will be accessible! KJP1 (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) There are a few images of Mounton Househere, some of which seem to be copied from the 13th Feb 1945 editon of Country Life, and which may be copyright free? Who knows, even earlearchitects.com might be willing to release one of their recent ones? That page may be quite a good source in itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Smiley face! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
A tattoo parlour - the indignity. But Raglan Lodge looks rather handsome - very nice window hood. Many thanks, indeed. KJP1 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Re. the photos, thanks Martin, they're very beautiful. But I have no doubt the copyright kings on Commons would delete them. You'll recall Hando, where I wasn't even allowed a photo I took of a book cover of his, which I own and which is some fifty years old. I do think the Commons guys go a bit mad on the copyright rules. This infobox, Kim Jong-un, and the explanation as to why, is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on here. KJP1 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Non-free images of buildings that are still extant are not permitted under our fair use rules. Images published in Country Life in 1915 would be {{PD-US}} but to upload to the Commons you would also have to be able to prove that they are in the public domain in the source country as well. If you can't prove them to be PD in the source country, you could upload them to en.wiki and tag them as PD-US with the proviso {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}} — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for the very prompt advice, Diannaa. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding Ruth Copeland. Very much appreciated! As a long-time Parliament-Funkadelic fan, I've known of her and had copies of her albums for years, but never knew much about her. Thanks again. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 04:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The Romancers
I've been busy lately, so I haven't had time to look over some things, but I just noticed that an inexperienced editor (Lincoln Tiger) has made a lot of sloppy changes to the Romancers article. I would imagine that the editor may be connected with someone in the band's history (Uballez?) and wants to represent the article from that person's point of view. While some of what has been added may indeed be true, very little of it is sourced. And, it seems to be written from a biased perspective (as if it is trying to prove a point). In my original edits, I tried be faithful to what the sources say, but there is so much in there now we cannot verify. I don't know what to do about it. Going back edit-by edit is going to be complicated. I don't think that we could do rollback, because the edits seem to be in good faith. What would you recommend? Perhaps it might be best to revert it back to the earlier wording (before that LincolnTiger's series of edits), and I could contact that LincolnTiger and we could discuss the changes he'd like to see. What should we do, revert individual edits or take it back to a prior state in time? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Apart from correcting the formating and referencing errors (which I can look at), I suggest you wait a day or so to see if LincolnTiger responds to you. They are clearly new here, and need to be made aware of various policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:NOR, etc. etc.. If they cooperate, work with them - in particular, if they are willing to go down the route of identifying, on the article talk page, factual errors in the February version. If not, I suggest that, essentially, you revert back to the February version but also add in any additional information you can glean from the www.makzrecords.com site. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll take some time and see if Lincoln Tiger wishes to respond. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits on Licorice McKechnie
Hi, I may have not been correct about 1990 disappearance, but I wrote that because she went missing in 1987. The reason I reworded the article its because it was plagiarized from another internet article. Also why did you remove the disappearance heading. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The article was not "plagiarized from another internet article". That section (and most of the article) is sourced from published material in the Be Glad book and the Mojo article, as the references state. This has been discussed in the past (and in my comments there today) on the article talk page, and any further discussion should take place there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
As a complete aside, the second paragraph in Licorice McKechnie's article (under 'Biography') does not read well. I am not too sure what it relates too exactly, so I did not edit it myself.
Thanks. Recent edits have not been well written - I've done a further quick copyedit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Disappearance heading
Hi, Should there be a disappearance heading?
Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
No - I removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, why not? Most missing people have them, why not this one?
Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess because, in most cases, the other articles are primarily about their disappearance. This one isn't. It's part of her biography. See also WP:Other stuff exists - it's not a valid reason to include it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't suppose John Long is in BARE ? All I have is a birth year, but can not seem to uncover the full details (see my sandbucket). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
No, sorry, I can't find any details at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. Otherwise, the draft article is now close to finalisation. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
German diaspora
Okay let's put under the subheading, people with German Ancestry as well. That should accommodate the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This has been raised for discussion on the article talk page. Make your comments there, for other editors to contribute, rather than discussing the matter with me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Diane Hildebrand
Obviously, she is not in BARE but is there a way you could find a birth date for her? I cannot even figure out if she is American or English though my best guess is English. Definitely a notable songwriter for the Monkees and others.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think she is English? This suggests American, although that shouldn't be regarded as reliable. She was reported to be 22 in 1968. That article seems to have the most information about her - it says she is now called Joya Diane SKye [sic], who is here. You could message her! Her profile says she is from Crestone, Colorado, and now lives in Ashland, Oregon - more info here, which gives her age as 72, and states various relatives with the name Hilderbrand [sic]. So, possibly born around 1945 (or 46) as Diane Hilderbrand in Colorado - though I can't track anything down on Ancestry.com. and of course Hilderbrand may be a married name. There is an audio interview with her here, but I'm not sure if it helps. And on YouTube here. Most of what I've said contravenes WP:OR and MOS:BLP, of course... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Scrub all that. She's here.... (Neither English nor retired!) And the Brazil connection, fed through Ancestry, gives me Diane Hilderbrand [sic], born on April 13, 1945, in Roswell, New Mexico. {Source Information - Ancestry.com. Florida, Passenger Lists, 1898-1963 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2006.) She lived in Brazil with her parents, Jewell Hilderbrand (1915-2005) and Georgetta Hilderbrand (1920-?), and a brother, David Allen Hilderbrand (b.1944). In 1965, she was back in the US, at San Fernando State College, in the chorus for a performance of Bye Bye Birdie. That's all (so far...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Ahh, because I read ABC as BBC in the Amoeba article, making me think she was English. Good thing I have a sandbox. Had a nice talk with her on Facebook. Likes to talk about politics (dislikes the "commander-in-chief" thankfully). Thank you for all the help, as usual. I'll be back to congratulate you when you reach number 1,000.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
United Kingdom
You have reverted my edit on the United Kingdom for "three good reasons" but have not explained why. Can you please do so? I think the fact the UK is comprised of four Countries of the United Kingdom is an important piece of information to have in the lead paragraph, considering the paragraphs before the actual contents of the page do not explain the UK is comprised of four countries of the United Kingdom. May you please explain your reasons? Thanks. Best - Goodreg3 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll reply on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Mehgan Markle
Hello Ghmyrtle.
I'm sorry about my editing on Meghan Markle but I am new to editing articles on this site.
I am journalist, psychologist and research on famous people like Meghan Markle to see what their lives have been like and improve their biographies on platforms like Wikipedia.
The reason why I have called my self I'm totally legit is because I don't want a username that doesn't shows myself of to much as I would rather keep myself private and have a username that is comfortable to other users.
As I still haven't got my journalism degree you can't expect me to be perfect on my articles yet but I still am only putting on the things I definitely know about Meghan Markle because I have done a lot of research.
I hope you understand and I will continue to improve my contributions on this site.
Please feel free to send any other messages if there is anything else you want to tell me.
Many thanks,
I'm totally legit:) Im totally legit (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure that you're acting in good faith, and I've added a welcome notice to your page. I suggest that you read some of the advice on there, including how best to get started in editing. Making substantial and not well thought-out edits on articles which are viewed by hundreds if not thousands of people is probably not the best way to start. Changes which do not meet Wikipedia's many guidelines and policies are not likely to survive for long. Good luck - but be careful in your edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to do with sex on the floor... , but have you come across this individual ? Far more your type of thing than mine, although you probably have enough on at present. I do not know how interested you are/were in John Lee Hooker, but I may have some more work for you if you fancy it. Let me know, or don't if you are busy. Cheers,
Hmm... well spotted. Clearly I should have heard of him.... but I hadn't. I'll see what I can do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Somewhat half-hearted attempt now started.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
A half-decent effort, me thinks. Did you get a chance to listen to any of his work during your non-original research ? I've never heard of him at all, until I stumbled across the name via my work on Music Maker, and so on...
I half-listened to a couple of tracks - OK...ish. I was in half a mind not to include some of his personal details, where the sourcing is... not perfect, shall we say.... My interest was kindled by his affiliation with ESP-Disk, home of a personal hero of mine, Tom Rapp. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Pearls Before Pigs I know, but not Mr. Rapp. Incidentally, I have given his article a minor tickle, but it is terribly short of references. Over to you.
{{BLP refimprove}} - yes indeed. Us old-timers go back a long way, back to when no-one bothered much about pesky details like adding references... Ahh, those were the days... I'll get to it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
A bot got the image
Sadly, a bot removed the image of Richard Berry in the Gargage rock article--I suppose there was a copyright issue. I'll miss having it there--it enriched the article, and I remember you put it there (for which I remain grateful). Incidentally, I want to mention my sadness about the recent terrorist incident and voice my condolences and support to people in the UK. I'd also like to express my shock at Donald Trump's remarks directed towards London's mayor, who is working hard to deal with the situation--and who needs everyone's good thoughts and support. I never thought I'd see something like that from a US president towards our closest allies. It's utterly appalling. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
.png){kind=link}
Done Scrub all that. She's here.... (Neither English nor retired!) And the Brazil connection, fed through Ancestry, gives me Diane Hilderbrand [sic], born on April 13, 1945, in Roswell, New Mexico. {Source Information - Ancestry.com. Florida, Passenger Lists, 1898-1963 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2006.) She lived in Brazil with her parents, Jewell Hilderbrand (1915-2005) and Georgetta Hilderbrand (1920-?), and a brother, David Allen Hilderbrand (b.1944). In 1965, she was back in the US, at San Fernando State College, in the chorus for a performance of Bye Bye Birdie. That's all (so far...) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)