Talk:Janey Godley

Reverted changes

I've undone the changes made by 79.69.196.116 as they seem a little odd.

In the introductory overview, the reference to the fact she wrote a bestselling autobiography and was a nominee as Scotswoman of the Year (with sources) were removed, which I think are as notable as her Scotsman column to put in the opening overview paragraph.

The change to the Early Life & Career section made it arguably ungrammatical - eg "and regularly compered at clubs in Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool regular dates in the Netherlands "

Two references (with sources) to the Perrier Award (the most prestigious prize at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival) were totally removed, which seems a tad perverse.

The 2006 section, as re-written, made no sense and left in an award nomination but excluded an award win.

Shortening things is usually a good idea and it could maybe do with shortening over-all, but this seemed marginally destructive shortening.

Martynsadler 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the changes made by 93.97.153.17 as they’re a tad perverse, like the 79.69.196.116 changes.

Changing “She was, for a time” to “For a brief period, she was” is, at least, quirky.

Changing “the documentary series to which she contributed” to “the documentary series to which she was interviewed” is ungrammatical as well as rather pointless.

To say she “appeared” on “Loose Ends” is simply wrong - as it is a radio show.

Removal of the two cited references to the Perrier Prize - the main prize at the Edinburgh Fringe - seems a little malicious - as does the removal of the reference to three appearances at the Glastonbury Festival.

These edits feel slightly more like they’ve been done by a competitor than an editor.

Martynsadler 01:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

I note that a good deal (most?) of this article has been lifted verbatim from Janey Godley's own website, seemingly by unsigned-up users such as 172.216.59.137. Wikipedia is not just about copying and pasting from other websites, people! Would the author(s) of this copyvio please reword the relevant sections to remove the copyvio. Thanks. Flapdragon 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the subject was probably the culprit. 10 years later, I've initiated a massive trim of the peacockery, laundry lists, irrelevances, etc. --82.41.126.253 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Needs a major trim...

The size of this wiki far outweighs the notability of the individual - needs cut all over the place. I've made a start but it's a big job. --82.41.126.253 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. Subject is so insignificant that perhaps AFD should be considered. --82.41.126.253 (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please define reasons for "insignificant". She tours widely and frequently appears in regional & national media - how is that insignificant? REH11 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Public Enemy Number One?

She was prevented from approaching her subject by Police Scotland.

What, by all of them? Surely, She was prevented from approaching her subject by police officers, and insert a link to Wiki article on Police Scotland, would remove any suggestion of using a police conspiracy to crack a nut.

Nuttyskin (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Appearance on "Great British Railway Journeys" with Michael Portillo

I spotted this on the British 'Freeview' TV Channel called "Yesterdays" that is doing repeats of Michael Portillo's "Great British Railway Journeys" series. In one episode, when Portillo is going from Carlisle to Glasgow, he interviews Godley about the poverty and deprivation in Glasgow. I believe this interview was carried out in 2009, well before Janey became well-known. She was totally straight in the interview as if she was doing a documentary.

Taff Hewitt (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article on Ashley Storrie

Some wikipedia editor thinks that Ashley Storrie is not sufficiently notable, and has marked her wikipedia page as such. Even though Ashley is notable enough to also have earned an article in the Scots wikipedia.

Timed just as Janey was dying, and as Ashley and Janey are heavily in the news as a result.

Ashley is notable in her own right. Please consider adding to her page. Thankyou.

Fear not, that's a pretty feeble 'may be' tag, the article is obviously very short but in my opinion has sufficient sources to demonstrate notability so I'm confident it would pass an assessment of that, which is the only process by which it could be deleted. Crowsus (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

In response to your comment about the suitability tag added to Ashley Storrie’s page on October 31 - it was placed by the same editor who is now deleting edits related to Ashley’s mother.

The tag was previously removed, but he has reinstated it, stating that the suitability hasn’t been discussed. I have already addressed this user on this Talk page regarding his deletions here, but no response as yet.

I’ll initiate a discussion with him to address the tag’s removal.

I note your comment on the timing. No worries; we’re on it. Elinoria (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, @Elinoria has indicated on the Ashley Storrie talk page that they have now had enough of debating with the trolls, and those trolls are still trying to delete the (well done, and well sourced) article on Ashley Storrie. Please take a look at that article and its talk page, and contribute. 193.82.232.233 (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Elinoria. The timing is a mixed blessing -- had Janey still been with us now, Trump being elected would certainly have killed her. A fate worse than death?

Mass deletion of edits

@Jkaharper Hello, Yesterday I made several updates to Janey Godley’s page, which you removed, en masse. You said that my edits were non-constructive and that I made too many. (This is all evidenced on my User Talk page).

From my perspective, my edits were intended to improve the page comprehensively, and I believe they were constructive contributions. As per yesterday, when I asked you this twice, I’d appreciate clarification on why you felt otherwise.

I have sought administrator assistance but learned that discussions about content should take place on the article’s Talk page first rather than just my User Talk page.

To summarize, could you please explain specifically what aspects of my edits you found non-constructive and just as importantly, why you reverted all my edits entirely?

I recently read on a Wikipedia page the edits were encouraged, not to worry if there are mistakes, other editors will help with detail, but you have simply deleted all of my work. This is directly contradictory to what I read that editing Wikipedia is about.

Please respond this time. Elinoria (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

So firstly @Elinoria:, less of the hyperbole – "mass deletion of edits" is not true at all. It was specifically a reversion of your edits because they weren't constructive, and your revision was not an article improvement.

Secondly, I haven't ignored your comments. In fact, I replied to you several times already, including on your own talk page. I didn't see your further reply because you didn't tag me in it, and thus I didn't receive any notification. The administrators are correct – you should have flagged this on this talk page.

With regards to your edits, I'm not really sure where to begin. I suggested that you go away and read through WP:MS before you continue editing and I can see you haven't taken me up on that suggestion.

Of the things that were wrong with your edit:

• Use of italics where they don't belong, e.g. for a real-life hospital
• Poor sentence structure and grammar
• Not citing reliable sources when adding further information
• Irrelevant trivia added to the lead, including Godley's opinion on Trump
• Removal of death information as a sub-section of Personal Life into its own section – not needed
• Inclusion of details about her background into the lead – which belongs directly underneath in the "early life" section
• Quoted tributes for Godley. See WP:NOTAMEMORIAL
• Removal of content added by other users

I could go on...

Whilst I'm here, I'm also going to flag the fact that your edits were repeatedly restored by a string of unregistered IPs using a Swiss proxy, several of which have now been banned or restricted. Whilst I'm not accusing you of being the same person, if this continues I will ask for it to be investigated further, and if it is you you'll be caught. Tagging @Bbb23: who may see a pattern here...

I will be away with work until Thursday evening so I won't be able to reply in the meantime, but I'll make sure to respond to any replies after that time. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jkaharper

You accuse me of hyperbole when I mention the “mass deletion” of my edits. 1,620-odd characters were removed, covering details from at least six edits that I believe were constructive.

Could you please explain why you deemed the following content unconstructive and deleted them?

1. Details on Scotland’s First Minister’s statement upon Janey Godley’s passing.

2. Information on Godley receiving the Billy Connolly Spirit of Glasgow Award.

3. A note on Godley’s advocacy for transgender rights.

4. A note on her advocacy for women’s rights.

5. Evidence supporting Godley’s honorary doctorate.

6. A rewritten, copy-edited version of the sparse lead paragraph created after her death on November 2.

You suggested content about her background didn’t belong in the lead, which is understandable, but why did you remove the whole section?

Also, why did you reference WP:NOTAMEMORIAL? Am I missing something?

Some of your other copy-editing comments, while debatable, don’t justify deletion. Wikipedia is about building knowledge.

You then use bold text to emphasise that an anonymous editor is repeatedly restoring my edits, yet you state that you aren’t accusing me - although you have tagged someone to investigate it. Why include that if not to imply suspicion?

Finally, it’s unfortunate you won’t be back on Wikipedia until Thursday evening, as this delay means Janey Godley’s page remains without pertinent information during the week of her death - when the page is being repeatedly accesssed. Similarly, her daughter Ashley’s page will continue to carry the notability banner you have put on it, where you argue Storrie’s page is “seriously questionable,” despite her unquestionable popularity as a BBC presenter, which you say you dispute after a “quick Google”. Elinoria (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jkaharper

I’m stepping away from the Janey Godley and Ashley Storrie pages now.

It’s so sad that for whatever reason, the articles about this mother and daughter have been targeted in the week of the former’s death, but it’s not my battle. Elinoria (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Storrie article nominated for deletion

The Ashley Storrie article has now been nominated for deletion. I think that the subject is notable, the article is good, and that it should be kept. I'm sure you'll agree. Please have your say on the article deletion page. Lloyd Wood (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Courtesy link to this discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Storrie