Wikipedia

User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 22

< User talk:Ghmyrtle
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Ghmyrtle in topic The Ink Spots disbanded in 1954
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Bristol Wiki Meetup

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

File:W P Brookes.jpg missing description details

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

England

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's already partially protected, and it isn't an edit war yet. As I explained on Wales where the same thing has happened, a user called Jembana goes around any vaguely Celtic pages inserting his fandom for the Koch/Cunliffe Atlantic Celtic theory, which isn't generally accepted at all. We managed to get rid of him on the Tartessian language page where it all started, but now the contagion has spread. Paul S (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right, but who says it "isn't generally accepted at all"? You, and who else? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Monmouth Wikipedia Training

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It would be really good if you could help out on the Monmouth Wikipedia training 20th at Monmouth. We did meet there briefly around a year and a half ago, and maybe we could continue the conversation! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Can't do, I'm afraid. Anyway, I would have thought that Monmouth is the last place on earth that needs more WP editors. Apart from Gibraltar, perhaps.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Johnny Hates Jazz

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I know this is not your passion/forte/interest, nor really mine to be frank. For reasons I can not immediately fathom, it has been on my 'watchlist' for a long while. I may be too close to the article for a rational, balanced assessment, but a recent large-scale edit has removed some referencing, added others, but radically changed the wording. I can not quite decide if it is a puffed up, critically slewed version, with some air brushing, or a more serious attempt for consistency, albeit with copious unbalanced wording throughout.

Just a second opinion really, if you have the time. Oh, was it this sunburn you were trying to avoid ?!? Bestest,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Essentially, this is what {s)he's done. They've added a few refs, but removed the Allmusic one for some reason - it should be reinstated as a WP:RS, I'd say. And then they've added a lot of (mostly) unreferenced stuff on Original Line Up, Post Break Up, and New Era - which is almost all highly promotional and POV. If it were me (which it won't be, as I need to do a lot of off-wiki stuff at the moment), I'd cut that all right back, and add a few tags to it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and   Done. Cheers, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

POV dispute

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. If it's no bother, could you comment at this discussion regarding a POV dispute? It specifically concerns this removal/revision made by an editor. Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No comment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Castell Arnallt

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
 
Hello, Ghmyrtle. You have new messages at Talk:Castell Arnallt.
Message added 09:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CaroleHenson (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I am totally getting the point that I've crossed a line and you really don't want me working on castle articles. I promise I am out-of-here... you can have your domain. I just have a hard time seeing this kind of response to good-faith efforts. I promise, in the end, you win.--CaroleHenson (talk)

For my own future reference: exchange below copied from User talk:CaroleHenson:

Hi Carole. It's not a question of edit warring, and I'm sure you act in good faith. Do you remember when you started editing, at Abergavenny, and you seemed to think that Offa's Dyke and the Offa's Dyke Path were one and the same thing? As a result of that episode, I do tend to check for accuracy when your edits appear on my watchlist. I know that you're excellent at adding sources, and referencing - that's not a problem. But, sometimes, when you remove information that is not ideally sourced but which is accurate and uncontentious, and then you re-edit the remaining information, you can sometimes misinterpret what is left. Personally, I'd much prefer it if you were to add {{cn}} tags in those cases, rather than removing information. I see from this page that other editors have expressed very similar concerns about your editing. I live in Monmouthshire and have an interest in local history (in fact, I have written some local guides myself). I have at least two bookshelves full of material on local Monmouthshire history. Other editors equally have an interest in the area, and access to good offline sources. At some point - preferably in my own time - I will try and add that material to Monmouthshire articles. I don't like being bounced into that process, in having to correct factual errors, typos, etc. So there's no problem in us working together, but I would prefer it if you simply did not revert my edits in order to return to an inaccurate article wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC) [edit conflict]

Oh, my, I had no idea I was being held responsible for an edit from years ago when I had just started.
For what it's worth, I didn't add any new facts here. But I can definitely see that I'm in your turf and you don't want me here. Trust me, I'm out of here.
When you've had a chance to look - I think you'll see that I didn't add anything in terms of content to Castell Arnallt. I am leaving, but I will disagree on inappropriate edits, removal of sources (which was probably not intended) and edits that replace guideline driven content with content that doesn't meet guidelines. Since this is only three articles - and I'm getting out of your turf, I'm hoping we can resolve this professionally.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I would have preferred not to have performed a sentence by sentence audit of sources because of the number of dropped citations, a couple of places where one source was made to look like it applied to several previous sentences of content, etc. I had assumed that they were good-faith mistakes, but I'm getting a sense that you may be above making mistakes. Hmmm.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

If you would be so kind to let me know your turf, that would be great. I'm hearing Monmouthshire. Anything else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Carole, it's not a personal matter, and it's not to do with any specific articles, or "turfs". What I am saying is that, sometimes, in your efforts to improve articles, you throw the baby out with the bathwater and leave behind errors that other editors need to tidy up. Check out my last edits to the Castell Arnallt article to see how many typos and inconsistencies I've had to correct (though I'm sure they are not all down to your edits). All I'm saying is, please, whatever articles you are working on, be careful over accuracy, and don't assume that all other editors will accept your opinion as to what you think is a "finished" version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Since it's being saved, I disagree with many of your statements. I think you were confused about several points. But, I will continue to uphold my promise to stay away from Monmouthshire. I have no doubt that you are a subject matter expert.--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I almost certainly am confused, about many things. Some of my errors I've now recognised, and corrected myself. Equally, perhaps you will acknowledge that there are some things about which you were confused. There's no reason for you to stay away from Monmouthshire articles, so long as you recognise that other editors also have information and knowledge about the area. Good collaborative editing is a process of give and take. Of course I recognise that many of your edits greatly improve the articles you work on, and I'm grateful for your involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope you'll forgive me poking my nose in here, but I do hate to see two valuable editors part acrimoniously. Carole, I've interacted with Ghmyrtle several times over the last few years, and I've always found him to be a most reasonable and polite editor – we do have to accept at times that others are genuinely more knowledgeable about a topic and/or have access to a greater range of relevant sources than we do. Likewise, Ghmyrtle, I've only wiki-met CaroleHenson recently, but it's abundantly clear that her ability to forensically examine the sourcing of articles is extremely useful in the appropriate circumstances. And, to be honest, a sharp poke like that can spur one into making those improvements that deep down we knew were needed (well, it's worked like that for me in the past, at least!)  —SMALLJIM  11:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks... and, I agree. One day, all Monmouthshire articles will be "perfect" - but that day is a very very long way off. Until that happens, none of the articles "belong" to me, Carole, or anyone else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Smalljim - and yes, I wholeheartedly agree about Ghmyrtle being a knowledgeable subject matter expert. Thanks to both of you for your input.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Standells

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Perhaps you would like to go in and clean up the most recent addition to the article. Primary sources and WP:CRYSTAL, but some how worthy of inclusion one would think. So, at least for style. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Masterfully done. One can only wish for some secondary sources. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Longforth Farm in Wellington, Somerset

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Ghm. I wonder have you seen this yet? Thought it might be of interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince George of Cambridge

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What did you mean by this edit summary? Did you actually look at the talk page? StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies - I hadn't realised a new thread had been opened on the same subject as the previous thread. (Why that was done, I don't know.) Anyway, I've now responded to you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
.....let's just wait until he's a bit older? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't get where I am today by procrastinating. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
"I didn't get where I am today without learning how to compromise... take the afternoon off!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

J. Aldrich Libbey posting

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I wish to thank you for posting this interesting and thorough article about a member of my family tree. J. Aldrich Libbey was my grandfather's cousin, and Aldrich Libbey's father was my great-grandfather's brother. The brothers were raised in New Hampshire, and my great-grandfather came west to San Francisco in the 1860s. I'd like to ask a question about Aldrich Libbey's death, which coincidentally took place in San Francisco, but he was apparently not buried there. Would you have any information about his place of birth? Also, I took the liberty of adding the Aldrich Libbey article to the Libbey disambiguation page, which links to a few other members of my family tree. I'm an infrequent poster to Wikipedia, so I hope this meets the appropriate guidelines. Thanks much. MWLX (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and comments. I've now found out a little more about his early life from this source, and added it to the article. Regarding his death, it seems from the funeral directors' notice here that he was cremated at Cypress Lawn Memorial Park, but I don't know any more about his death itself. If you have any further information, please let me know. I'll copy this exchange to the article talk page, where other editors may contribute in due course. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Random "Talk: you have new messages" messages?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

After someone left me a real talk page message, I stopped getting the fake thing. Perhaps this message will resolve the problem for you as it did for me. Might help if you'd report at VPT what happens after you get this message, especially if the fakes continue. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems OK today. So far..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Look... this is a real one! (Well realish). Have a good break, Ghm. Hope everything is ok. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not gone quite yet... All well though. Could you keep an eye on Ginsters for me? They are insisting on adding a lot of fluff, spam and crap. To the article. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"You can't beat a Ginsters" (.. but if it starts crawling around, you might have to) ... might sink my teeth in, but only if I get really hungry. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you think

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

that we should tell editor User:John kirk to at least use another name while extolling the virtues of Power Soul, as invented by . . . . . ...... John Kirk, over at Soul music? In any case, thank you for being on top of it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Power-Soul

Hi...

Not sure if im doing this right. Think I may be correct in starting a Stub ?

If not, will expand the content prior to re-entering — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kirk (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to add... takes more than one man to come up with this sound. but... its out there. so, simply ensuring credit is noted. However, if the Genera is allowed to float about more bands around the world could possibly add their own experiences (if anyone outh there is doing the same thing) possibly pre-dating Gadji... Who knows unless it is documented — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kirk (talk • contribs) 14:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well that is the point... the article would require some outside verification that this is in fact a notable style of music. ... discospinster talk 14:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Quite. We only (should) have articles covering subject matter that has already been documented in independent reliable sources - not on genres that you invent yourself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Arrrr.... its gone already... I was sourcing out press articles to add :( .... Never mind, im new to wiki really, just trying to link everything up as a matter of interest for everyone .. hey ho.

Gadji

Hi...

The band in question has been established for nearly 20 years with a rich heritage a heritage branching from the family tree of one of the largest acts in the world.

Gadji has members of international repute with international festival work.

Additionally the word Gadji is also addressed on the entry.

Lastly. The band has had a notable impact on the progression of the Rock and Soul genres due to its generated fusion.

The Entry is additionally been continually added and expanded too as new material has been sourced. John kirk (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John kirk (talk • contribs) 15:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (sigs... sorry, learning all the time) John kirk (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, could you allow some time for required information/requirements to be put into place ? thank you. Gadji are at a similar stage to the band Geordie (band) at the moment. Still getting my head around the Wiki system meantime. John kirk (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't tell me - make your case here. The problem is that there are criteria for identifying whether bands are notable and therefore should have an article about them - WP:BAND - and I don't see any evidence either in the article, or on Google, that they meet those criteria. Sorry. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that section 6 may be satisfied if relevant citation is presented. Also... section 7

6 Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. 7 Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.84.107 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please - don't make your case to me on this page. You need to make your case >>>> here <<<<. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rocket 88

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Thanks for your note. I was just having a bit of fun. He actually thought my note putting down "Rocket 88" was a published article. (Been a writer for 50 years, don't stop for a troll.) I appreciate your efforts with this guy, but frankly my opinion of the worth of "Rocket 88" is dropping with every one of his superfluous words. Is there any evidence that the song was really influential? I was an avid R&B listener from 1949 on and I don't remember it's being nearly as important as, say "One Mint Julep" or "Good Rockin' Tonight". Best regards, through your efforts you're protecting the article, but I'm too old to get mad all the time, which is why I am such a sporadic contributor. I haven't forgotten that there's no article yet on Raymond Hill. Ortolan88 (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm not protecting the article - we still have the claim that "most rock historians believe.." that it was "the first rock'n'roll record" - which is simply untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the statement that " "Rocket 88" is frequently cited but others disagree". I believe that you put forth the thesis that "Rocket 88" got all this attention due to the discussion of it in the book "What was the first . . ." which I find quite telling. I don't believe any record was the first, and certainly not "Rocket 88", but you can't escape from "frequently cited" because god knows it is. If we had google all the way back to 1940, it would show that "Roll 'Em Pete" was "cited" more over the years than "Rocket 88", I'm pretty sure. I was born in 1940 in south Georgia and was truly immersed in both rhythm and blues and what we called "hillbilly" music from about age 9 and "Rocket 88" simply doesn't stand out.

BTW, the version of "Rocket 88" by Bill Haley and the Saddlemen does have a prominent backbeat, which is the major difference from the "Brenston" version. In fact, Haley has the piano introduction, and when the time comes for the sax solo, Haley echoes "Blow your horn, Rocky, blow your horn" in tribute to "Blow your horn, Raymond" even though Rocky is playing electric guitar. Haley has a convincing bluesy style and the record rocks, although Wikipedia inexplicably calls it a "western swing" version, which it is not. This is a hopeless tangle and I am relying mainly on my own ears and my own memories, not the ritualistically repeated opinions of a bunch of book writers who hear a backbeat when the Delta Cats play a double shuffle. Best wishes to you. Sit back and put on a good playlist and relax in your great love of music.

Three articles I put considerable effort into -- backbeat, 12-bar blues and blues ballad -- were utterly eviscerated by book-informed ninnies several years ago, which brought an end to my incessant preoccupation with Wikipedia. I'm still glad you're hanging on. "Wine Spodee Odee", the first song I ever learned, tells you more about rock and roll than any article or book, in Wikipedia or cited by it. Best regards, Tom Parmenter. Ortolan88 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC) PS - A double shuffle can be played with a backbeat, but isn't on the Turner record.

Believe me, I know how frustrating it can be. What I think I'll try to do - over time - is to improve the "Rocket 88" article to a reasonable standard. I'll certainly take another look at what it says about Haley's version. I'd welcome your help with that! And I'll try to put together a stub on Willie Kizart - the problem I have is that I haven't yet tracked down any sources saying when he left Turner's band, or indeed about anything much after "Rocket 88" (though I do know that he taught Turner to play guitar). Do you have any information on that? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: I don't know if you've seen this - he suggests that the idea that "Rocket 88" might have been "the first r'n'r record" started in the late 60s, at a time when fuzz guitar was seen as the hallmark of the rock music sound. Interesting. I don't think that the thought started with the Dawson & Propes book at all, actually - quite the contrary, that book effectively refuted the idea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
On the surface, there seems to be enough interest and reference material to turn this into a GA. However, my experience with the GA process (two albums & one song, but not as a nominator or reviewer) has been overwhelmingly negative. It seems the participants are only interested in promoting a particular aspect or viewpoint and have only a cursory understanding of the subject. As long as the prose is decent and everything is wikified, things like balance and accuracy are not only a distant second, but have been ignored or rejected. The concern is that the same might happen here. How to avoid it? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Beware the Bad Man

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

666 on your page, I see. Do I need to keep my fingers crossed ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Drop the attitood, baby, drop the attitood...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Removal of sourced content and addition of original research

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Your edits to Origins of rock and roll have been reverted. Your edit with the summary "?!" was reverted because it removed one of the credited authors of this book. Your subsequent edit, which you explained as a "wording" change, was reverted because you removed sourced material and reworded the text that changed the meaning of what the source said. Unless there is a source that has published this thought and this is not your novel analysis of previously published material, statements like "Since the late 1960s, many writers have emphasized the importance of ..." and "...has often been called 'the first rock 'n' roll record, while others have questioned this description" go beyond what any source actually says; the second synthesis combines two ideas, which if a published source had, would be acceptable. If it has, please cite it. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion on the article talk page - not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Songs about candy

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was a CfD on this category before it was moved to remove capitalization. I have now re-added the CfD notice. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings and... layout tag at Ernie Freeman

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings Ghmyrtle. I didn't have time to look through the whole article to see if there's anything else that needs sorting out, but the discography section has a load of text in italics that seems out of place. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've sorted that, I think. (It wasn't my doing in the first place!) OK to remove the tag now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Greetings again. I don't remember the exact protocol for removing non-conflictive maintenance tags by long-term editors once they've sorted out whatever needed to be fixed (I do it myself all the time, and no-one has objected, so far...), but given your track record, AGF and taking into consideration "be bold", it's safe to say that no-one would object to you removing that particular one without waiting for me to give the go-ahead. I'll usually ask "permission" (or at least notify the tagging editor) if it's a more "serious" tag, such as CSD, but otherwise, away it goes. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for The Master Singers

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Marcus McDilda

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see the "Highway Singers" note just above this thread; thanks again for writing it :-)

If I remember rightly, my public library has an ancestry.com subscription (at least that's what I assume this page is talking about), so if you could give me links to the McDilda pages you mentioned at WP:RDH, I should be able to look them up. Please post them at my talk page, or please leave links at RDH without mentioning what I've said — I don't want to disappoint KnightMove if I end up being unable to get access. No hurry: it's a national holiday today in the USA (for some reason, our Labor Day is in September, not 1 May), so I'll not be able to do anything about it until tomorrow at earliest. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User: 81.111.255.155

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed your too have had to deal with edits from this user. Do you know how you go about blocking or warning someone for their edits? Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But see also WP:BOOMERANG. Edit warring (such as at Halewood) can get both parties blocked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

yes

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

YES, scone and scone(bread) is all the same thing:) Hafspajen (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Culm

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi GHM. I think you are spot on. The "Culm" appears to named after the Culm Measures (or Culm Supergroup?) that underlie the region, whereas the River Culm flows through the neighbouring region of the Devon Redlands. There may be a case for a separate article in due course, but we can work that out downstream. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, though personally I'm not too keen on the idea of having separate NCA articles when the areas themselves already have articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

British Empire

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Ghmyrtle. I see you cited WP:NPA in one of your edit summaries but you yourself called another editor's edit to be stupid/foolish. These type of edits certainly don't help where all of us are required to work in a collaborative manner, So I ask you to please stay cool and avoid commenting on the contributors. Thanks --SMS Talk 16:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"...you yourself called another editor's edit to be stupid/foolish." No I didn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seaforth page.

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Guy, really appreciate your work particularly on Merseyside pages. However I believe Seaforth to be a town. The web page you cited I fear has just taken the info from Wikipedia like so many pages do. A district is too ambiguous, surley it has a settlement designation. I'm also curious about the areas of Wirral, do they all need to mention they are on the Wirral Peninsular ? Surley the designation of the borough provides the necessary geographic designation. Would all the Knowsley and Sefton settlements have to mention that they are located on the English mainland?

Once again I appreciate and admre your work but just wanted to raise these points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.255.155 (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are tending to edit on the basis of what you think is true, or important - when you should be editing on the basis of what reliable sources say is true, and what readers will find important. For example, Halewood is a town because it has a town council; Seaforth is not a town because it has no town council, and the local Sefton council specifically uses the word "district". At Birkenhead and Mersey Tunnels Police you removed perfectly true and valid information giving specific details on their location for no good reason, other than that you apparently think it's unimportant. The Wirral peninsula is a significant geographical feature - there is no reason to deny readers that information. We are here to provide accurate, reliable and relevant information, not remove it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I will continue to monitor User:81.111.255.155 edits, I am sensing a pattern of adding city and towns(your reversal on Halewood just reaffirmed this). I don't believe all the edits are in good faith with what appears to be a childish effort on the users partBabydoll9799 (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking no sides - you make some good edits and some misjudged ones, just as the IP does. I will monitor both your edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair dos. Where would you stand on the recent edit of "Transport in Liverpool". I can see both sides but prefer the edit as it was with the addition for cross river services - this is a unique bit of text as it is not just west it is cross river. Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
You mean this edit? I don't think there's a very strong case for treating cross-river services as a special case - they are still west of the city. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

New Wales Coast Path WikiProject

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

As a member of WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Cardiff or an user who has contributed to Welsh articles we invite you to contribute to a new project, Living Paths!: articles, images, translations... Lonely Planet rated the coast of Wales "the best region on Earth" in 2012, yet there is a very low number of articles on the history and culture of places along the Coastal Path. This promises to be an exciting project as it gathers momentum with many Users joining in across the world.

If you are interested in training groups in Wales, please leave a message on the Talk Page.
Let's make this WikiProject, like the path itself, the best on earth! And let's put Wales back on the map!

Cymrodor (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

In reply to your message on my Talk Page to do with the Soul Music article

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

lol. Give me a chance. I've added the Satchmo Blows Up The World by Penny Von Eschen (see p161 - use Google Books) to the edit description and also added a Township soul ref for the statement. Look you're going to have to give me a chance to go through my Access database of the books I've read. It got to the stage years ago that I couldn't keep track of everything I had read so I created a database. My memory is quite good but my reading interests are so wide that I'm constantly having to refer to my database to confirm authors and book titles even though my memory has retained the outline of the material I've absorbed. I'm not a computer so it takes a bit longer than a few minutes to get my refs sorted.

Still nice to hear from you and despite my track record of sarcasm and general bedevilment towards others I do respect the wishes of other editors (based on my assessment of course) and their hopes for this encyclopedia.

Now get lost and let me work. lol

Sluffs (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about

jumping into the middle of the situation at Soul music without doing my homework. I quickly got an atitude about the "I'd prefer" part and reacted badly. I am editing in an unfamiliar place on someone else's computer, without my comfort source material & music and so am making unsound decisions. I think the article is back to where it was pre-me. more, later Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I do try to work with Sluffs - or, at least, not work against him - because I respect his editing skills even when I disagree on details with him. But it's not an easy task, as perhaps he would himself admit. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kofi Awoonor

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for recent edits on Kofi Awoonor. I have added {{inuse}} template to it. If you haven't finished with your contribution, kindly let me know so I pave way for you to continue. Thanks--Enock4seth (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fine - no problem. Thanks for telling me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome Sir. Am done now. Thanks. --Enock4seth (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike Deasy

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Guy! Thank you so much for your article on Mike Deasy. I am Mike's long time publicist and we were in the works creating an article for Mike and his immense contribution to rock music and his participation as a member of The Clique, which later became known as The Wrecking Crew after Hal Blaine's book. I just wanted to let you know that since you've already created his listing, I'll just discard ours and we'll add to yours, adding some details and doing a tweak here in there. But thanks again and please respond if you have any comments or questions concerning Mike and his legacy. Our next goal is to get him in the Rock Hall!

Cheers,

Sounddude (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for your comments. You may already know about the guidelines on conflict of interest - it's generally not a good idea for someone closely connected to an article subject to make edits themselves, but there is more guidance at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Yes, as a long time contributor here I am aware of the guidelines and always contribute and edit from the position of an unbiased writer, and only make corrections or pertinent additions. Thanks again! Sounddude (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Brewster Hughes.

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Graham. Thank you for your introduction. The photo I posted is of my late father Brewster Hughes. It is one of many that I own and I used it as the header of your page on him. I noticed my birthdate is not listed with my siblings. Thelma Hughes is my mother. I was born on August 22 1960. I have lots of my fathers photos and music and will cherish them always. Your work on his biography is greatly appreciated. Sincerely Naomi Yinka Hughes Kanaeishaeden (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message (though my name is Guy, not Graham!) I'm happy to help, but two words of advice. Firstly, it is generally not a good idea to give too much information about living people - who are themselves not "notable" in Wikipedia terms - in articles. That is why I won't put your details in the article, though I will mention your mother's name. Secondly, to make sure that the photo you uploaded is not removed by another editor, you must make sure that, on the upload page itself, you fill out the licence details that confirm that you own the copyright to the photo, and that you agree to its free use. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Accidentally forgot to log in

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

If it is possible, please change the visibility of the IP in the following edits: [1] (made from the IP and contains it) and [2] (only contains it). Thanks! Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I can do about that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I replied to that, in detail, on the other editor's talk page. Not only did I not get a reply, I was insulted again and my reply was deleted. I'll post it here (it's obviously addressed to them):

Ha! Let's see:

  1. You've been continuously ignoring my request to follow BRD by repeatedly reinstating your removals (yes, I can count too).
  2. My talk page – you introduced the thread by an insult and a threat, and ignored my reply.
  3. Your talk page – not only did you ignore me, you deleted the thread I attempted to start.
  4. BLP noticeboard – you've been advised to go to RS/N while no one agreed with your tendentious stand on these sources.
  5. RS noticeboard – you've gained a weak semi-support from one editor but no actual consensus. Most editors are inclined towards the case-to-case scenario, while still disagreeing with your extreme and controversial stand on those sources.
  6. You're a reviewer and a rollbacker, which makes your behavior a dozen times more appalling. I simply refuse to get cornered by a bully.

So, to add an insult to an injury, Hillbillyholiday81 deleted my reply with the following edit summary:

Lol, accusations of bullying now? where's my troll spray? Now please don't post here any more

Everything here points to me repeatedly trying very hard to engage said editor in a civilized discussion on several platforms, and in return, being met with repeated insults and refusal to cooperate. I've done my share of good edits for several years not to take $#!+ from editors that think somehow that a reviewer/rollbacker status gives them the right to dismiss whomever they feel like however they feel like. Please help. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no interest in who's right and who's wrong, but I've reported both of you at WP:AN/I. Take it up there, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about treating your fellow editors. By the way, here is the other editor's stand on this issue, where they admit to go against consensus because it doesn't suit them personally. This is a quote from BLP/N:
I'm outta here. Twelve years and still this place can't decide whether The Mail is suitable for BLPs. What an utter joke.
I thought we could settle this here, but if you decided that ANI is a better place... so be it. My verdict is probably pre-determined anyway. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Ink Spots disbanded in 1954

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Ink Spots disbanded in 1954. All members of the original Ink Spots were either dead or retired from "spin-off" or "imposter" Ink Spots groups when you say this man was a member of the group. The Ink Spots history is often misrepresented and inaccurate. There are references that even say that the lead singer Bill Kenny, left in 1945 when he disbanded the group in 1954. You really have to do research to know the truth from the lies and use your better judgement. This man never sang with The Ink Spots. A good book to get is "More Than Words Can Say - The Ink Spots and Their Music." I will continue to make the necessary edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillKenny14 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I know you have strong views on this. But, those strong views are irrelevant here. Later groups traded as, and were reported to be, the Ink Spots. Therefore, it is entirely correct that they be described as the Ink Spots here. What you personally believe to be correct doesn't matter. What reliable sources state to be the truth is all-important. If you want to pursue this, I suggest that you post a request for comments at WP:RS/N. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
PS: Incidentally, I have immense respect for Marv Goldberg, who wrote that book - I have referenced him many times, in many articles. But, the fact is that he is not the only source that can be used about the Ink Spots. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive_22&oldid=1168301397"