Jump to content

User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Operation Yewtree report

You are quite right, the background section shows amazing skill at copy and paste from Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Worth noting, though, that this is not the "Operation Yewtree report" - Operation Yewtree, as I understand it, continues as a police investigation into others still alive. This is a report specifically into allegations against Savile. I don't find it particularly impressive as a report - it's mostly a summary of statistics, with some background and general comments that don't go much further than what has been said by the media in the past. The bits that "we" wrote are fine, of course! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Didn't realise that you would have such a hand in writing this report, Ghm! Guess we'll have to go back and change it all now to avoid copyvio?! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Obligatory plate of wiki kittens

For all your hard work with former-deity Leeds disk jockey: [1] (Oh Yeah!) (actually a great pop song, regrettably). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk... I'm sure you're equally fond of this.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Goodness me, what are you saying about this "distant son of Merthyr Tydfil"? At least he keeps his horn to himself! "On BBC Radio Blackburn in 1979, Margaret Thatcher picked it as a favourite song" Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
... and there's no way that guy with the wig is from Leeds... Wakefield at best, but more probably Bolton. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Francesco Baretta

Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in 2008. The tag's still there and you may want to consider taking it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Disputed: use of the term "Black" to describe "African-Americans" and "White" to describe "Caucasians"

These terms are not direct quotes from sources. If not a direct quote then previous use of the disputed terms whether 80 years ago or in a book from 2 years ago does not mean that they are essential or necessary in this article. Anachronisms and personal writing styles do not set a precedence. They are not enclosed in speech-marks or the block-quote tag. I've started a section on the articles talk page which is the precursor to RFC and then Arbitration. I will seek clarification from senior editors and admin. Hopefully this will resolved soon to everyone's mutual benefit and satisfaction. Sluffs (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Big Bill Broonzy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Hamilton Bohannon updates...

Thank you for the information. Please advise on how best to handle this situation. Unlike the information previously posted, I am in direct contact with the artist, Hamilton Bohannon PKA "BOHANNON". He is displeased with the current information posted on Wikipedia and would like his official bio and information posted instead. The current information contains errors and is not factual. How do we corrent this situation? Please advise.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkjones05 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Essentially, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on already published reliable sources, that can be independently verified. It should not contain promotional material, and should not contain copyright violations such as material copied from a record label website - though in some circumstances it may be OK to use that material as a source. Equally, it should not contain errors of fact, and they will be corrected especially in biographies of living people. Regarding autobiographies, I suggest that you (and Mr Bohannon) read this advice on autobiographical material, in particular this section on how to deal with errors of fact in articles. Essentially, you should raise your concerns on the article talk page, and leave it to independent and neutral editors to correct the article. Let me know if I can help further - I am happy to improve the article text in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC) (still doing the Disco Stomp....)
PS: I've now expanded the article a little, based on published sources. Hope it's an improvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mabey Group

Thanks, that was indeed the link I meant. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Mike Stevens and the Shevels

Any idea where The Shevels were from? [2] You might like this groovy Mod name-dropper: [3] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good grief, I'm being stalked, from here to here.... I shall look into it (or, if Derek's lurking somewhere......)  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Haha, very funny. (I think it's actually called the "Stalked Plover", known in some parts, I believe, as the "Common Lancashire Grouse".) I was secretly hoping that Derek might be watching! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still somewhat plagued with jet lag. Incidentally, I've never heard of Mike - not Shakin' - Stevens, nor the Shovels (dig it). Are they actually notable ?? They look like another lot of "didn't quite make its" to me. On the question of birds, I saw numerous Yucatan Jays and Boat-billed Flycatchers recently - does that count ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure they're not even notable enough to be mentioned on a editor's Talk Page. That's probably why I was so interested in them. I was more interested in the didn't-quite-Shevels, as they were (allegedly) from Wales. But you must have had a great holiday... I never realised there was so much wildlife on that exotic far-away peninsular. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I never realised that the noun peninsula was spelled (or even spelt) with an "r". Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... and Coatie Mondays, Agadooties, Good Golly It's a Load of Mollies, Blackbirds singing in the dead of night, and Guinness Birds. Anyhow, "they were... from Wales". Rather like coal minors presumably. Tee hee.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"lol" - was using peninsular as a verb, obviously; it's because I'm so insula, I guess. Also, I'm often harpist. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Or were you alluding to these R&B rockers?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Continent Revisions

Hi,

Im not sure why you changed my revisions to the Continent article, could you provide references which argue against the references I provided?

For the "Largest Island" article you have not provided any credible sources for your revision to Australias' landmass. You have not given any reasonable reason why the landmass in Australia is not the largest island.

Regards, --Jimbon132 (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the consensus is that Australia is the smallest continent. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
That may be, but the consensus on Australias status as a continent has nothing to do with the landmass of Australia, you undid my edits to Australias landmass which were backed by a credible source with no explaination or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbon132 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any particular interest in the precise area of Australia's landmass. But you were edit-warring against consensus, so I reverted you, as is normal practice. If you haven't yet read this advice, I suggest you do so. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Editing an issue you have no interest in is vandalism. The issue in this case was the area of Australias landmass rounded to the nearest 100,000 sq km. I dont think any rational person would consider that precise.--Jimbon132 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"Editing an issue you have no interest in is vandalism." No, it isn't. Please do not attack other editors in this way. I'm afraid you really have a lot to learn before becoming a useful contributor here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
So you undid my revision on the landmass on Australia yet you have no interest in the landmass on Australia. I fail to see how that is useful. I provided a reputible source to something I do have an interest in and you provided no argument against it before undoing my editing. You have described a landmass rounded to the nearest 100,000 sq km in an online encyclopedia as precise and you are telling me that I am not a useful contributor? You attack me then ask me not to attack you. You should read the article you cited: "Comment on content, not on the contributor.". Im not sure your in a position to judge. You have a lot to learn about debate before you can become a useful contributor (in general).--Jimbon132 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Duane Eddy

I do not know if the 'guitar man' is still on your watchlist, or not. Anyhow, I've sprinkled a bit of goo-goo dust around it, so you might care to have a look. I will shortly return to Emile Ford, if I ever get back up to speed (or even E's for that matter). How was lovely Weymouth ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Drennon

Do you have any information on this bloke ? "Let's Do The Latin Hustle" (1975/6) was his only UK hit with B.B.S. Unlimited. Disco meets Latin meets R&B (maybe). He was Bo Diddley's musical director for a short while, plus he worked with Ike and Spike amongst others. Primarily a violinist and probably in his seventies now (born c. 1942). He may be in your book(s) - I know it's a long shot. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've added a stub on his apparent mentor Lou Perez - anything you can add there? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
No, I can't find anything to add to the Perez article... sorry. Actually, just looking back to Drennon's article, and reference number 22 is incorrect as it relates to Whitburn's Top Pop Singles 1955-2002 book. Have you the relevant R&B chart book reference ? Anyhow, thanks for adding various bits and bobs to it. I did not think I had done too badly, considering Drennon only had one hit to speak of. Had you heard of him prior to seeing the article ? Oddly I came to him via the 'M and O Band' which, in many ways, are even a lesser light. Although the, somewhat promotional, Murfin Music International article alludes to that one-off, opportunisitc, session musician outfit. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Haemorrhoid Farm

Taking a massively wild punt, and assuming you are a big fan of this soap opera, what is the connection between it and Merseybeat ? See The Dennisons for the answer.

Derek R Bullamore (talk)

I could ask you similarly, what is the connection between Mickey Rooney and Rick James? Here is your answer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ink Spots

In the book "More Than Words Can Say" by Marv Goldberg he makes note of the "imposter" groups. No one had the rights to the name but Bill Kenny and for a time Charlie Fuqua and Deek Watson. All of this information is in the book. Also, I did cite later in the article that the last Ink Spots appearance was at the Bolero Bar in Wildwood NJ in 1954 when Bill Kenny broke up the group. he had the rights to the name at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillKenny14 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have great respect for Marv Goldberg, and I don't have the book you mention. Perhaps it would be better to use an online source like this, which quotes Goldberg and which uses words like "imposter". But I still think that that is an opinion rather than an established fact, and that it would be wrong for us as editors to attempt to interpret any legal judgement dating back 59 years. It's simply not necessary, and it is clearly non-neutral wording. It's a bit unnerving to discover that such a substantial article only has 8 references, by the way! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Marv Goldberg's book is really the only truly reliable and accurate account of The Ink Spots. You can look through Google news and search the old newspapers and read such lies as "Charles Ward was in the group in the 40's but was drafted so he had to leave but came back in 45 to take over the group". I wish I could edit the article to add more info and organize it better but I simply don't have the time at the moment. I recommend you get Goldberg's book also! I'm not sure what you think you know about The Ink Spots but if its anything you've read on liner notes or in newspapers, its probably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillKenny14 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

So far as Wikipedia content is concerned, the issue is set out here- "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." So, it's fine to include what Goldberg says, but we shouldn't exclude other published information, even if Goldberg (and you) think it is false. Of course, we can emphasise the true information - for instance, along the lines of: "Many sources state that X happened in year A, but Marv Goldberg, in his book ..... has shown that this was not the case and, in fact, Y happened in year B". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankie Jaxon

You might be interested: someone just tracked down an unimpeachable source for the death date of Frankie "Half-Pint" Jaxon: his headstone application as a military veteran. See http://hilobrow.com/2013/02/03/frankie-jaxon/ for a photographic reproduction of the original of the certificate. Pretty cool. Portland, Maine musician Allen Lowe (who probably deserves and article of his own, but I see does not have one) aimed me at this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking at that, and it's very interesting - but I'd hesitate to describe it as "unimpeachable". It seems to be assumed in that source that Frank Devera Jackson (not "Jaxon", incidentally) is "our" Frankie Jaxon - which is probably true but I wouldn't have thought it's certain. At least, I think a sentence or two about the uncertainties should be included in the text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rick Huxley

He was born 5 August 1940, not 1942 - note his age at death is given as 72 in The Independent article. Another one gone. Who is your money on for the hat-trick, following on from Reg Presley earlier this month ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You'd better find a WP:RS for that - not Allmusic, obviously! Don't know who's next, but I'm confident we'll see a spate of old timers over the next few years. Chuck Berry? B. B. King? According to this list, Bernadette Nolan, Vera Lynn, Doris Day, Pete Seeger and Fats Domino are leading contenders. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I think Oldies.com, based upon the Encyclopedia of Popular Music by Colin Larkin, should suffice. I notice the DC5 article already had his year of birth as 1940. Cheerful website you found, by the way. Is this a regular viewing platform for you ? I think the list of suspects seem well chosen - but you can not account for freak accidents like the Fisherman's Friends chap. I thought at first he'd choked on one of their inedible lozenges.
My wife informed me, whilst I was compiling the Jimmy Crawford article, that she used to sing backing vocals on "I Love How You Love Me" with her 1950s/1960s rock and roll outfit. She has been humming the tune all bloody day long. Could be worse, she might have learned this one instead !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chet's

Hi there. More in sorrow than anger I've warned the editor re 3RR. I would rather not but as you know attempts to discuss it have not been a great success. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, though personally I'd have cut a bit more slack as she is clearly new and well-meaning - just ignorant of how things work here. Hopefully she will make some comment and engage with other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I suppose. But she is able to come and edit the page often enough, and has seen the big orange banner saying "you have new messages" enough times. If I try to put myself in her shoes, and even with all the concerns that she obviously deeply feels, I still think I might notice that and do something about it. I am not, I swear, unsympathetic to her position. But it's like her well-meaningness extends just to the one thing, not to the encyclopaedia as such or indeed to you and me. I do feel we've already cut her a fair bit of slack and for the best of reasons but as in all these situations I think there comes a point where you have to ask where the boundary lies between blissful ignorance and something more directed ... if not warned, when was she going to engage with us? That, I suppose, is my worry. But thank you for your comments and for your vigilance over this and other articles. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Another thought: I'm always happy to consider the possibility that I've got it wrong. (I usually do.) So here's a couple of things: (1) if I have been over the top and been Bad Cop prematurely then slap me round the head as I deserve but also note that I won't be around on wp much for the weekend, so you and others can be Good Cop and maybe make more progress than I have been able to; and (2) what if she's right?? Not right to just hoick sourced content out and (even inadvertently) edit-war like that, of course, but what if she's implicitly right in that it's undue weight? Obviously the article can't/shouldn't just ignore it ... but what if there was a main article 2013 Manchester music schools sex abuse scandal or whatever, and that was where the main content went, and then other articles like Chet's, RNCM, Gregson etc just had a brief mention and "see main article" or however we usually do it? Just a thought - I wondered if it might help concentrate both the concern and the vitriol and perhaps focus things a bit more helpfully. And then Julieanne7's concerns might be at least partially met as there would presumably be less (though not nothing) about Brewer in the Chets article and more in this other putative article ... Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it only deserves a separate new article if the individual cases are found to be linked in some way. I haven't been following it in detail, but I don't think that's the case, is it? It would be better, in my view, to have a paragraph or two in the Chetham's article, and to cover it in the article on Brewer - with due weight being given in both cases - as we have now. I don't think that mentioning the court case briefly in the Chetham's article is undue weight at all - obviously, with links to what those now connected to the school are saying, rather than merely referring to the case itself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. Certainly the cases are linked by era, institutions and arguably attitudes but I am not sure that one can build a whole article on that ... or, at any rate, not yet. I do think it's possible that such an article might become necessary or sensible sooner or later ... but then this is a developing situation and it may be easier to see this in a while rather than now. We don't want to fall into the trap of treating it like a school shooting or plane crash and feeling that everything must be reported NOW. It depends a bit on how things now proceed - the more that emerges the more passions will be raised here and calmer editors might find themselves defending articles against sanitisers on one side and everything must be exposed about these b*stards now people on the other. This is already happening to a limited extent - I have already RPPd a related article as it was getting stuff in it that could have had wp in court; similarly, the Chets article is already in danger of expanding into a survey of the whole topic, every suspect teacher named, etc - and already the accuracy is starting to falter, with people jumping in with an imperfect understanding of the topic and its reporting. I certainly don't think that the Chets article should become a general home for all this stuff (a situation to which we may already be on the way); and I do think that your idea is better with the Chets/Brewer balance - but as more names are added it may get more difficult to sustain. IF there was a separate article about the scandal - and I am not going to beat this poor horse too much longer, I'm just saying - IF there were such an article then it might help a little as other articles could have the briefest of mentions then all the management of multiple news threads etc could happen at the main article - and hopefully all the edit warring too! (Not that there would be any, of course.) But I am not going to jump in, panic, etc. It is only an encyclopaedia! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes. I'm happy to leave it as it is for the moment, but I'll keep an eye on how the story develops. I was against creating a separate article on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal when that first arose, but it very rapidly proved to be very necessary. Though again we had the problem of editors wanting to add references to every single new piece of evidence that came forward (and that article still needs a lot of pruning out of those additions). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I sometimes have to make a conscious effort not to react right now! Actually right now, my work and my next cup of tea (the two are inextricably linked) are more urgent than this, and I should try to remember that. Thank you for your widsom and tolerance. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: David Axelrod

Yes. I've been working on improving an article on his album at my sandbox, which would lend itself to improving the Axelrod article. Dan56 (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have that album, on vinyl! Got into his stuff via the Electric Prunes, in the late 60s / early 70s. I'm happy to leave the articles on him in your hands - if I can usefully tweak them, I will. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If you are interested in doing it anytime soon, these would be useful: "Replay" by the Los Angeles Times, "Groovy Again" by Los Angeles Magazine, any page that mentions his name in Sonic Alchemy, and his sample credits compiled by WhoSampled. Dan56 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Britons

What happened here? Was this a homage to the original Alien (film)--SabreBD (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I must have accidentally deleted it when we had an edit conflict - I've reinstated it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. On that diff it looks as if your comment had burst out through the middle of mine. Maybe I need more sleep.--SabreBD (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tony Sheridan

Are you aware of any sources regarding Sheridan's death that were published before the edit to our article mentioning his death at 03:19 on the 17th? I don't think this is an instance of WP:CIRCULAR, but I've been poring over sources for the last hour (including German-language ones) and haven't found a single mention of his death anywhere prior to that edit. Cheers! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not, but the confirmation I used quoted a friend of his, which looked authentic enough to me - I can't give you the source here for some reason, but it's the one I cited here. This says that an announcement of his death was made by his daughter. If there were any doubt over the matter, we would have heard something over the last two days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Thanks for that! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Elm Guest House

hi Ghmyrtle, You've done a beautiful job combiing the Fairbank and Fernbridge pages into one page on Elm Guest House. I wanted to run them past you a couple of things that I would like to add into the Elm Guest House page. Bearing in mind that Exaro and the Mirror don't count as sources I have found links to the same information on the BBC and Daily Mail websites. Does that sound OK to you? I chose Exaro and the Mirror originally because the facts I wanted to include are easier to find within their stories. The Mail and BBC stories are longer and contain a lot of other detail.

1.) John Stingemore, who used to help run the Grafton Close Children's home, is named as the 70-year-old arrested man from Sussex in this BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21349730. The 66-year-old who was arrested is also named by the BBC as Father Tony McSweeney (the Catholic priest).

Their ages and where they live are corroborated in this met police statement: http://content.met.police.uk/News/Two-men-arrested-as-part-of-Operation-Fernbridge/1400014947847/1257246745756?scope_id=1257246764279

2.) That Haroon Kasir ran the guesthouse alongside his wife Carole, and that they were both convicted of running a disorderly house is mentioned in this Daily Mail story. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272253/Timebomb-Elm-Guest-House-Pop-stars-bishop-politician-appear-list-seized-police-investigating-child-abuse-London-hotel-1980s.html

Now I've found more acceptable sources - is it ok for me to insert those facts onto the page?

best wishes, Emma1913 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma1913 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 February 2013‎

Hi Emma. Thanks for checking this through. I don't think we got off to a good start, but I can see that you're trying to do the right thing, so apologies if I and others seem, or seemed, a little harsh in reverting you. Incidentally, it wasn't me who combined the Fairbank and Fernbridge pages, it was User:Gareth E Kegg, but I think it was a good move. It would be better if I copied your comments over to the article talk page, so that other editors can get involved in the discussion as well. I'll reply to your specific points over there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies

You have them. — LlywelynII 16:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - no problem! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Side point: Given that my (misguided) argument meant that discussion took several lines, would you object to my moving that part of the conversation down into the "discussion" area of that section? — LlywelynII 16:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean or if it would be helpful, but you could try it and if people don't like it, I/we could revert you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok. Just go look in a minute or two and, if you prefer, move it back. — LlywelynII 16:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

The Alarm

What now, do you think ? Is another revert with a third message to his talk page worthwhile, or is he hell bent on promoting his own viewpoint come what may. If the latter, what do you suggest ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted again - I did template them, but had second thoughts. I've left a message on the article talk page - I'll leave another note on their talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - you know you have my support - as if it was necessary. I do not know how long you have had this article on your watch list. It's been on mine for years and, every so often, the pro- and anti-Peters slant rears its head. I feel this is probably another manifestation of it. Anyhow, we will see what transpires. Well done,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Never had it on my watchlist before - don't own any records by them either. At least that makes me neutral! Both the article on the band, and on Peters, look pretty dire to me, but they're not top of my priority list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello you two. Derek R Bullamore and (talk) I'm pretty new to this wikipedia thing but I'm trying to update the Alarm (and Mike Peters) wiki to make it more up to date and factually correct. As you say Ghmyrtle (talk) Ghmyrtle (talk) both articles on The Alarm and Mike Peters make for very dire reading and are both somewhat off the mark in terms of the information (certainly current information) portrayed. My name is Andy Labrow and I am a fan of both The Alarm and Mike Peters and help out updating The Alarm facebook page and contributing to The Alarm website and work with all members of the band both from the founding years and the current line-up. I appreciate I got off to a bad start by trying to do too much and upon reading your posts, I understood the reasons for you Derek R Bullamore and Ghmyrtle (talk) wanting to revert them back and appreciate you Ghmyrtle (talk) at least dropping the negative quote from the introduction. I would like to proceed with a major overhaul of the band and Mike Peters wiki along the lines of the Stiff Little Fingers wiki (which I think is excellent and they have a similar history to The Alarm with line up changes etc.). It's fairly accepted by all now that The Alarm has a career that goes way beyond the first decade and that is why I have been trying to change the historical timeline in the changes I have been making. I would really like to have your support, guidance and help on this and so what do I have to do next? Where do I start? I am fully aware of the need to remain neutral and presume you will be keeping a watchful eye out for me. I look forward to hearing back from you. Perhaps you Ghmyrtle (talk) would like to come and see the band in Cardiff University this Friday with me? You might just find out that you like them! Alarmcalling (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Alarmcalling

Hi, and thanks for getting back to me. I think that probably the best thing for you to do is to read through some of the advice I posted on your talk page. For example, everyone here needs to edit from a neutral point of view - so, promotional language isn't acceptable, unless it is backed up by reliable sources which are cited in the article. What counts as a reliable source is important - it includes books, newspapers (the serious ones at least), authoritative websites (like Allmusic), etc. - but not fan sites, self-published sites or blogs. (But, we can sometimes cut a little slack on that, when they are the only sources of accurate information.) Any information you add should be verifiable by someone else - we don't just publish information that someone "knows" to be true. It's also a good idea to take things slowly, maybe make a series of small changes rather than doing them all in one go, and see whether someone changes them back again. And be prepared to discuss your suggested changes with other (maybe more neutral and more experienced) editors on the article talk page - ideally before you make the edits, and certainly if anyone reverts you or questions your changes. I'm not going to edit that article to any extent myself (and sorry, I can't make it to Cardiff, but thanks for the invite!). If you're prepared to change the way in which you approach the article, and remember that you are writing an encyclopedia rather than a fanzine, I'm sure your knowledge and interest will enable you to contribute here. Just remember that everyone here has equal rights to add or remove information! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Greasby

Some IP just reinstated some bullshit you had removed earlier. It's not yet worth protecting, I suppose. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Torrance

This is unbelievable. I found a few more mentions of the place, including old railroads maps that showed it midrail between Grenada and Coffeeville, Mississippi. Having an approximate point i tried to get how it was wiped off the face of earth... I scanned the forests in google maps and looked for the twentieth time at the old maps when I got something is missing: Grenada Lake. How O Brother, Where Art Thou? can it get? trespassers william (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Great Mississippi Flood of 1927: "..at 8:00 a.m. on April 21, 1927, 12 miles up river from Greenville at Mounds Landing, the levee burst with a force greater than Niagara Falls. The flood shattered levees from Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico inundating 27,000 square miles of land. (This was an area equal to the combined size of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont.) As a result of the monumental rainfall amounts, the Mississippi River Valley saw more flooding, more damage, more fear, more panic, more misery, and more death by drowning than any American had seen before and hopefully will ever see again. Over 130,000 homes were lost, 700,000 people were displaced..." ...."When the Levee Breaks". Though this map indicates that Torrance was not affected by the flood itself, the place must have been cleared later to create the lake. Indeed: " In the early 1950s the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began work on two flood control reservoirs in and around Yalobusha County, much to the distress of county farmers who lost thousands of acres of fertile bottom land. However, Enid Lake and Grenada Lake, both completed in 1955, are now popular recreation spots for locals and for visitors..." The same sort of thing happened not that far from me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Accusation

Thank you for your explanation of your reversals on Ide, Devon. With respect they are specious.

I follow your edits from time to time and I do not accept that the bulk of your edits are reasonable. The changes originally made looked like they added value and were not in any way controversial. I noted however, that initially some good information had been added on the Roman Fort, so I can see no legitimate reason why they should have been reverted.

In fact this is the primary concern I have about your contributions: they are almost all entirely REVERTS (or deletions), rather than substantive additions or adding of any value.

The article on Cornwall is a good case in point: You reverted no less than 19 changes to that article in a twelve month period. This, I would submit IS vandalism, and most people would find this level of destruction of other people's inputs such.

Like others I am a financial contributor to Wikipedia because I believe in it. I believe in it because it is a COMMUNITY resource, one that everyone is entitled to contribute without their contribution being simply deleted. I also think it is crucial for people like yourself and myself to try to keep the articles tight, well-worded and factual, but that said we do not have the right simply to dismiss the contributions of others. Indeed, Wikipedia articles should grow and become richer with time: It is not in our gift to delete information based on our own POV, and whether you agree or not, your reverts contain a strong POV bias.

I would be delighted if you would make a commitment not to revert edits wholesale in future, and perhaps we can work more cordially together.

If I have misunderstood where you are coming from then I will of course remove my comment. I await your feedback with interest. Artowalos (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)artowalos

The material added about the origin of the name was clearly original research ("...it would seem more likely that..."), which is of no value to an encyclopedia without reliable sources to back it up. (I made no changes to the information about the Roman fort.) I have no idea why you think my reverts "contain a strong POV bias", or why you think that my contributions "..are almost all entirely REVERTS (or deletions), rather than substantive additions or adding of any value.." You might like to consider the almost 600 new articles that I've created, as a start. You say that Wikipedia "..is a COMMUNITY resource, one that everyone is entitled to contribute without their contribution being simply deleted..." That is obviously not wholly true, or vandals and POV-pushers would have a free rein. I suggest that you continue your process of learning how best to contribute here, by reading some of the helpful links that I'm placing on your talk page, and by recognising the need for material to be referenced from reliable sources - and please steer clear of any further personal attacks on other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I assume good faith, but I stand by my point about the reversions: 19 reversions vs. 4 minor edits over 12 months. I applaud your 600 or so articles but may I respectfully suggest that you only revert edits on topics that you are presently contributing and leave it to those with an active interest? Otherwise, systematic reversion is highly suspect and will inevitably be seen as such. Regards, Artowalos (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)artowalos

Sorry, but it doesn't work like that. I'll continue to revert inappropriate edits, in line with WP policy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way: But hiding behind WP policy simply to justify mass reversals is the sort of thing that brings Wikipedia into disrepute and makes it utterly worthless as a body of knowledge. Artowalos (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)artowalos

Tony Waddington

Thanks, as ever, for your input on this new article. Just curious where the dob came from - I could not find anything for him. Trawling around I unearthed this. Just shows it sometimes takes longer (three years and the rest) than we think ! Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PS. In the days of yore, it would have been a contender for DYK. Tag line; probably - DYK that the English songwriter Tony Waddington went from "Nothing but a Heartache" to "Sugar Baby Love" in only five years. Oh, those were the days.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I got his birth details from Ancestry.com - the link is http://search.ancestry.co.uk/iexec?htx=view&r=5538&dbid=8782&iid=ons_b19432az-1385&fn=Anthony+B&ln=Waddington&st=r&ssrc=&pid=24852356. That link may only be accessible to members, but the records themselves are publicly available from various sites, and offline I believe. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Smoovedogg and 198.254.170.25

I'm beginning to see a pattern here... you ever notice like shortly after one of us makes a decent edit or copy edit of the Little Richard article that someone will either revert or add unnecessary information and unnecessary links to prove their sources? I'm starting to think with some of these masked IP addresses and Smoovedogg not creating his own page, I'm thinking they're the same guy. Think this needs some investigation? BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Could be. The IP geolocates to Canada. The problem is that what they are doing isn't really disruptive as such, is it? - just annoying! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah pretty much annoying! LOL :) BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 15:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Songs written by Morris Levy

I think your best course with Category:Songs written by Morris Levy would be to try to gather information to show in each article on a song that he was not the writer and then remove the songs from the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but that's easier said than done - many songs have relatively little information on the process by which their writing credits were decided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

RE: Song of Innocence

I was getting ready to respond to your talk page post. Should I still? (although your proposed change shouldnt be restored amid discussion). Dan56 (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's deal with it here. I think you should disregard the comment I placed previously, which was written in some haste (and mild annoyance). Firstly, I realise I was wrong in my belief that Release of an Oath pre-dated Song of Innocence - the David N Howard book that you cite suggests that it didn't, so I accept that. I think that Release of an Oath does deserve a mention in the article, as it was recorded essentially in the same period of time as Song of Innocence with the same musicians. On the other point, regarding the 1968 UK issue of the album, I know you won't necessarily believe that I own a copy, or that Discogs.com is a reliable source - but would you accept the Record Collector Rare Record Guide, which only covers UK releases and lists Songs of Innocence (sic), Capitol ST2982? There is another point that I've just picked up - this album cover. Which is also entitled Songs of Innocence, and has a completely different cover (photo of Axelrod) - was this a US reissue? I will dig out my 1968 UK vinyl copy (I may be some time!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: Found it! As I described, with both EMI and Capitol logos. Label says "Made in Great Britain", sleeve says "Printed and made by Garrod & Lofthouse Ltd.", etc. VG+ condition, what am I offered?! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The connection of Release of an Oath and Song of Innocence is weak at best: the only source I could find that mentions the two is this, which doesnt make the connection and establish notability to the article. It would however be worth mentioning in the artists' articles. From what I researched, Axelrod had the concept for Song of Innocence long before Mass in F Minor, as cited in the article. As for the reissue, I Googled the catalog number and got this book source, which lists it as a '75 reissue under the heading "USA" and this Billboard article from '68. With respect to your copy, the article should be based on third-party sources, and I nominated it for GA and intend to nominate it for FA afterwards. They'll likely bring up verifiability, not truth, and notability of information being based on its coverage by such sources. Dan56 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the Record Collector Rare Record Guide (available via subscription here) is not a reliable source? I know what the rules are, and I know that sources are relevant even where they're wrong, but I also have a copy of the 1968 UK issue LP in front of me, and truth is also important. Allmusic says "...in 1968 his first concept work was issued under the EMI imprint"; this surely relates to a UK issue, as in the US it was clearly released under the Capitol imprint. (From my point of view it's very annoying that none of the album cover images online show the same version as my copy, with both EMI and Capitol logos in the top left corner. Must add to the value of my copy though!) I also think it's relevant to mention (to avert confusion) that some of the reissues used the title Songs...., as did the 1968 publicity. Incidentally, should this thread be moved over to the article talk page, so that reviewers are aware of it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Splitting these w/bullets for clarity. As an aside, this talk page section can be referenced in a one-liner section like this.
  • Capitol was mostly acquired by EMI during the 1950s (if this is accurate). The Billboard source shows the album cover w/out the plural, though, so it's seems like just a typo by the reviewer. Again, the pertinence of the information is based on independent coverage. The sources that are cited in the release history table do not mispell the title. But is the Fitch book source wrong? Is it a conflicting source with the guide book? Is the catalog number supposed to be different between a reissue in the same year in the US and a reissue in the same year in the UK? Dan56 (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I went online and signed up for a free trial to see the entry, here for Song of Innocence (dont know if you have a subscription to see it). Under the section "record details", it reads, "Name: SONG OF INNOCENCE (LP, 'Sold in the U.K...' on label)", and the cat.# "Capitol ST 2982". Wouldnt the UK LP have read with the plural "Songs..." title, though? And could the sticker/label be interpreted as an imported pressing from the US? Like they do these days with Amazon and whatnot? Dan56 (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What the evidence shows to me is that:
  1. The LP was manufactured and released in the UK in 1968 on Capitol ST2982, with the sleeve showing both the EMI and Capitol logos, and with the title Song of Innocence. Although UK issues often did use different catalogue numbers, they did not always do so, and in this case they had the same number. But the record (label says "Made by Electric & Musical Industries Limited in Gt. Britain") and sleeve were clearly both made in the UK;
  2. Some of the publicity at the time mis-spelled the album title (Songs....);
  3. The Record Collector Rare Record Guide is correct in stating that it was a UK issue, and (now) in giving the correct title - though my printed copy of the 2010 RRG gives the incorrect (plural) title;
  4. The album was reissued in the US in 1975 (ref: Fitch) with a different cover - (the Axelrod photo, shown for illustration, not a WP:RS) - and the plural title.
Make what you will of that! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
And PS: Yes, the Fitch book is wrong in giving it the original title Songs... - that was only used on the 1975 reissue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Nah, it verifies both the original and the reissue, as it reads: "Recorded on Capitol ST-2982 (1968); reissued on Capitol ST-11362 (1975)". I guess it's attributing the latest pressing's title (book was published in 1990). Dan56 (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I can live with that. I'll cite the subscription-required page. Dan56 (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
You mean the online thing? It says "Value (Mint) £45.00" and then a bunch of others in a range of quality: "Excellent £36.00" down to "Bad £1.13". Dan56 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! - no change in value over the last three years then. Oh well, I'll have to make my fortune some other way... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cantre'r Gwaelod

Thanks. I knew that was clumsy but was hoping to find time to get back to it if no one else did. Take a look at the other articles Helig ap Glanawg and Llys Helig, I'm sure the section headings there need improving. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Annie Laurie

You may remember, or more probably not, creating an article for Paul Gayten in May 2007. I have recently added a couple of references to it. Anyhow, I have been trawling around trying to find information about his 'main' vocalist, Annie Laurie. Links are available at the bottom of my user page. I can not seem to find any information regarding birth or death details for her. I am guessing it is not her real name, but I can not find anything about that either. Can you help ? Joel Whitburn, maybe ?? I know this is a very long shot. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I'd thought about doing one on her, but couldn't find out much information. Will look later - out in a minute as I've a feeling today might be our best shot at "summer" this year... In the meantime, perhaps you could cast your eye over Albennie Jones and the legend that is Doc Sausage. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Not quite Ironing Board Sam, but Dr. Sausage and His Five Pork Chops is a real medal contender. Both good articles about people I've never heard of. Someone who might interest you more than me is Helen Miller. She is more notable than many with articles on here - and I should know, because I wrote most of them ! Incidentally, I came to her via the song "It Hurts to Be in Love". The same title, but a different song as it turns out, to one sung by Annie Laurie. See how I got back to her - I await your 'digging' efforts with interest.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you starting Annie Laurie? If so, it's probably easiest if I add what I have from Whitburn after you've started. Five R&B hits, of which two entered the pop charts, so no problem of notability. I see you've found many more sources than I did, so I'm happy to leave her to you. No birth details though, and no idea if that was her real name or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: In the meantime, I'm happy to look at Helen Miller - I'll see if I can track down more than Allmusic! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I was a bit 50/50 about our Annie, largely because I was not sure if she had 'star billing' on the singles. I thought it might be something like the 'Paul Gayten Orchestra (vocalist Annie Laurie)' type of thing, which makes her notability a bit more dubious. Anyhow, in view of the 'hits', I'll have a go at her, and leave Helen Miller to you. I suspect you will unearth more for her than I have on Annie (I am assuming, without evidence to the contrary, that she is still alive - she must be nigh on 90). Thanks for the help to date.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your input. Can I ask how you knew she had two US pop chart hits ? Allmusic only cites one, although it equally only notes two R&B chart successes. Somewhere along the way, someone noted that "It Hurts to Be in Love" was Laurie's only crossover hit. It is hardly mega important and 1947 was a long time ago - even the UK chart had a somewhat rocky history in the 1950s/1960s. Just wondering. Anyhow, it is quite a decent article in the end. Maybe, just maybe, someone will come up with birth (and death details) for her in due course. Not blowing our trumpets (my wife reckons I have a bigger trumpet than most), but these Yanks would be much poorer on Wikpedia without our concerted efforts. What did their 'older generation' listen to ? Are they all bloated and daft ?
Also, the pressure is on for your Helen Miller article ! Cheers Wiki mate,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about what you mean about the chart positions - given what Allmusic says, where did you get the information from? It's entirely accurate though - the Whitburn R&B book gives pop chart placings as well. One day, when I'm rich, I shall buy this... maybe. Helen Miller is ongoing - but will be very stubby! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, I did not realise that Whitburn gave pop chart placings in his R&B book. That answers that. I got my information from here which is a bit dodgy as a reference source (to put it mildly). But I was struggling for information and I knew you would correct any inaccuracies in the chart stats. £90 for a second hand version - phew that's a bit steep, although I notice the reviews at Amazon are glowing. Come along now, I am expecting great things from you with Madam Miller !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
PS. Sorry, I had not realised that you had already done Miller's article. I'll be dangerous once I'm awake. She was much older than I guessed, and therefore a bit surprised she had died. She co-wrote "Princess In Rags", eh. That's a good song from a fine singer. Pitney was really popular in this country. Him and Orbison seemed to be the most popular Yanks here in the 1960s. Well done, anyway.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

Calvin "Fuzz" Jones

Can you add anything to this new article from your copy of Juke Blues #70 ? Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Done, but very little to add I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks all the same. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem. By the way, ever wondered which one-hit wonder was the missing link between Arthur Askey and Stanley Kubrick? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Everybody know's that - it's Diana Decker, sister of Desmond and Carol. Ok, I cheated - I saw you had penned an article on Decker and looked it up !! Good one.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything You Can Do....

I will certainly have a look at Steve Guyger in due course. In my meanderings I've come across the following musicians, seemingly without an article, and all listed as soul-blues artists by Allmusic. I do not know any of the names, and I would guess that they will vary between soul, R&B and blues leanings. However, in a tit for tat procedure, do any of the following rock your boat ?

Willie Clayton [4], Trudy Lynn [5], Jay Owens [6], Lou Pride [7], Ellis Hooks [8], Eugene “Hideaway” Bridges [9], Big Kat Kaylor [10], Sandra Hall [11], or Willie Lomax [12]

Please feel free to throw some/all back my way, if your interest is not aroused. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, I'm certainly surprised that Eugene "Hideaway" Bridges doesn't have an article - he's the only one of that list that I've heard of.... I'll see what I can do for him. The others may drift a bit, so I'm happy for you to add them to your list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

about Ike Turner...Johncheverly is a newer user who is working on his adoption course and for it I asked him to clean up two articles, something he has not done before. I suggested he move it to his userspace, and I apologize for the fact that he uses capitals for emphasis, I should have hit wiki-markup a little harder so he knew how to bold and italicize, so that is my fault. Again, I'm sorry for your frustration. --Go Phightins! 10:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem - thanks! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

Why did you revert my protest edit

Hi

Do you remember when Wikpedia "blacked" out to protest against SOPA - well I just did a "white" out on my edits on the Broonzy talk page as a protest against a Wikipedia admin decisions to do with my editing on the Desmond Dekker and The Beatles article. Evidently the Beatles article is protected from the inclusion of budget label releases. I tried to remove two budget releases from the Dekker article and had my edit reverted. Admin said regardless of their budget nature they were still a Dekker release. I then went to The Beatles article to include the same budget label Beatles release in their discography and was told that my edit would be reverted. Removing the text here was my protest - not that it would get much notice or be effective however it did make me feel better. Anyway leave it in if you want, I'm not bothered and I suppose you probably thought it was something other than a protest.

I'm actually stopping my Wikipedia editing. When different rules exist for different articles despite everyone saying the opposite (the evidence is above) then my position here becomes untenable.

Sluffs (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I changed it was because guidance says that you shouldn't remove your own talk page contributions after someone has replied to them, because it causes confusion to other editors. Regarding the Desmond Dekker edits, I think the other editor is right - it's not up to us to make recommendations on which compilations are best, we just report the existence of alternatives. Regarding the Beatles, yes, different rules do apply there because, unlike for Dekker, there are many other articles (like The Beatles discography and The Beatles' influence on popular culture) where questions like the notability of cheap reissues can be discussed without changing the main article. Whether that's right or not is a separate issue - but given that the Beatles' global fame considerably outweighs that of Dekker, it's understandable, and the different treatment is a fact of life. You do what you feel best, but I think you make a significant contribution here (for example at The Clovers), and it would be a shame if you were to go simply because of the sort of minor disagreement between editors that, frankly, happens all the time. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well to be honest Wikipedia was never my thing - in all the years I've been a member I've pretty much been doing the Guitar book at Wikibooks. This is the third time I've tried to "full-time" edit at Wikipedia and once again I find I prefer the "you can do what you want with a Wikibook". No edit conflicts, no refs - just me and my decades of knowledge acquired as a guitarist and music fan. I find the constant need to justify your editing to other Wikipedia members as very tiring and I do try to find articles where I will be left alone. I knew that Dekker was a familiar name to most people; next time (highly unlikely since the last site I removed myself from a site like this I never went back) I'll start doing "real" reggae article like Lacksley Castell or Pablo Gad where no doubt I'll be left alone since most of the general public on Wikipedia wouldn't have heard of these great artists.

Sluffs (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is for you to continue to develop the reggae and related articles - for instance, as others have said, to start a new Desmond Dekker discography article - rather than criticising other articles or other editors. At the Dekker article itself, you could simply split the "authorised" releases - or whatever terminology you choose to use - from the unauthorised releases. Another person who I know needs to have an article written is Count Suckle. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As to your suggeestion that I disengage from the Beatles article (stated on my Talk Page) that would be possible but not a practical reflection of the way the internet is changing human perception. I presume you are following the Beatles Discussion thread. The song "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" has been included into the Reggae article on the basis that it has been referenced. The reference I haven't checked but I imagine it is a caucasian author with an interest in the 1960s caucasian band in question who wrote a book aimed at a caucasian audience. A caucasian Wikipedia editor who is a fan of this caucasian band then reads the book and decides to include the claim that its inclusion into the reggae article was based on it being a good example of a caucasian rock song influenced by the non-caucasian reggae genre. Maybe we should change the name World Wide Web to Caucasian Wide Web. When are you all going to let non-caucasian people write articles to do with non-caucasian subjects with the same force of belief (and protection) that you write the Beatles articles. Whoopee doo! Great that Wikipedia spouts an an attitude that anyone can be involved in any article but the reality is far from that truth. Constantly coloured editors are denied edits when they try to balance the historical record to be a true reflection of the events in question and their impact on the people who in this case bought the music ie, reggae music not The Beatles "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" - you might find a bit of Queen (the rock group) in West Indian homes; at least in the home of a certain West Indian I know lol. The net has wired the world; in a hundred years they will laugh at the people in these threads that promoted the unfair and biased recording of history based on a purely caucasian majority consensus viewpoint as promoted by Wikpedia's admin . Until then I have to put up with caucasian people (no doubt some with the right liberal intentions yet reluctant to let go of pre-internet perceptions) telling me a non-causcasian editor how best to preserve the history of non-caucasian subjects. Just keep applying the rules as you see fit. I don't edit to show solidarity with any cause and I certainly don't edit with a bias to distorting the historical record. I edit articles because they need to be improved usually with references. Still nice to see IndoPug being used in the user namespace as a not-so-subtle form of humorous caucasian observation for the benefit of other caucasian editors - let the future be the judge of that.

The Clovers article was actually done because of a silent request from someone else. They placed a bookmark at The Clovers entry in a book. I would've drawn the line if they had marked out Pinky and Perky.

Sluffs (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can discuss those points wherever you like, so long as you are civil about it, don't attack other editors, and don't simply assert that your opinions are right and everyone else is wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I will not be cajoled into acceptance of the user namespace being used as a weapon of insult. Very clever that with an insulting username one can remain as civil as one likes while every comment you make is barbed with your uncivil signature. I'm being as civil as their masked arrogance allows any reasonable man to be.

Sluffs (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the situation. If you are referring to this user, they have been editing here for three years and I don't think that anyone has previously taken exception to their name. If you're concerned about it, the place to raise it is Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, but personally I would be surprised if editors there agreed that the name is inappropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Its a poor choice. I take exception to it on the basis that its ambiguous but that is the point of why he chose the name. Am I dealing with an adult here. I once had a man of 60 who had a cold go past me and coughed on purpose. People don't change because they get older. If you've been raised to think the moral sun shines like enlightening beams of rays from your eyes for all the poor darkies of the East to be shown the way then you join the Jehovah Witnesses and get to do the Livingstone bit. This is not a religion or a culture - its an encyclopedia that anyone can edit or so we are led to believe. Thats life - I am a realist about being coloured but my equality is not your gift to me.

Sluffs (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems from his user page that that editor is an adult American. Anyone can edit here - but, just as you edited other people's text at The Clovers and elsewhere, anyone else can edit your edits in turn. That's life indeed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I agree and the open nature of this user driven site allows all sorts of people to join. It is my experience that ethnocentric people, people from a much older generation, british national party members and a whole host of caucasian people will make the unusual decision that the WWW should be solely a reflection of their culture. There's always an old guard, people who remember empire, queen and films like Zulu Dawn. There are americans who live in a haze of distant memory of segregation and how even the mighty Martin Luther King got it for being a bit too cocky. So I have to deal with old school types - I'm living with a caucasian friend at the moment who's parents raised him to think England has given the world civilization and I always point out that it was more a case of what can we get away with. Is Carry on Up The Khyber civilization - sure feels like it to me. I might as well be asking question: what does the "white-devil" wear under his kilt? Do you want me to go up to the top of a hill to beat my spear against my shield in acceptance of your brave "Zulu Dawn" defence. Get a grip guys - the young don't want the world you created, they don't want the world I was raised in, they want to try a new way. You know as well as I do what IndoPug refers to. Lovely to be insulted so I just like to return the compliment. I notice you have an interest in music articles. Since you so graciously condescended to recommend an article that I could create to do with reggae here's one I recommend to do with rock and country:

White_power_rock

Its had a multiple issues tag since 2011. Thanks for pointing out the Count Suckle didn't have an article. Why do I get the feeling you're a white R&B and blues fan? lol You wouldn't want to be coloured in the UK - life isn't as easy. You should be happy you're caucasian - get a job easier and you don't have to spend everyday at work acting like Chicken George. If you are caucasian then you have no idea of how tiring it is for people like me to have justify why articles should all be treated equally. "Ob Bli Da" has a caucasian ref so it has to stay in the Reggae article despite the ref being a bold faced caucasian lie about its relationship to the genre of reggae. Any relationship to reggae exists only in the minds of the songwriter and those who choose to believe him. Its not what I call reggae and it hardly qualifies as a "reggae influenced rock song". The inclusion of budget releases in the Dekker article drew me to the conclusion that Michigs reggae collection at home must be quite strange if he's populated it with Emporio and Laserlight releases. If he hasn't then what gives him the right to promote those awful labels as candidates for inclusion into a reggae fans collection. I've come across this caucasian liberal crap before when I used to play down at art centers. I really don't want any caucasians to be down with me - I just want to be able to write the reggae articles with the pure heart of a coloured man that can look into any other coloured man's eyes without a glint of ethnocentricity or racism. IndoPug indeed.

Sluffs (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion. I've tried to be as helpful and supportive as I can be. I hope you will see that, in any communal enterprise, not just online ones like this, progress is made by people who are civil to each other and don't make unjustified assumptions. Good luck. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Well actually you made two unjustified assumptions. The first is that you decided to "suggest" that I do an article about Count Suckle as though you were Lord of Wikipedia and secondly you thought that being caucasian and liking non-caucasian music would give you some currency with me. To quote a caucasian reggae vinyl collector I grew up with "just because I like the music doesn't mean I have to like the people" - as all non-caucasian people eventually find out: the good heart of many caucasians who profess liberal attitudes towards race is always sorely tested when they meet a non-caucasian who won't be cajoled, flattered, ordered around and basically will tell you to "sling yer hook" especially when you think you don't deserve it. What was it you were saying on the Broonzy talk page - you defended the use of the word "black" (although to be fair you did say maybe it wasn't an ideal term) and pointed out that its Wikipedia policy. That sounds like the same excuse the villagers near the concentration camps gave - well it was Nazi policy so there was nothing they could do. However in this case there was something you could have done: you could have opposed the use of the generic term "black man" (and variations) in Wikipedia articles for its lack of technical accuracy. You want to help us well here's something simple to start with - go back to the Broonzy article and change the term "black man" to "African-American" (where possible since I understand we need to quote and reference others who may have used the term in the past) as I was doing before you appeared with your caucasian wisdom and stopped me - make that "break" now with the past and I'll probably decide you do deserve some credit in helping us with our ongoing fight for equality.

Sluffs (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "black" is not WP policy - but it is the term used in many reliable sources, including both the US and UK Censuses, and WP policy is to use the terms that reliable sources use. I have no problem with implementing that policy, and if the term has been the subject of debate previously here I'm not aware of it. If you want to question the policy, the place for you to raise it is probably at WP:DRN. I didn't "suggest" that you write an article on Count Suckle, by the way, I simply pointed out that he doesn't have an article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Bonnie Baker (singer)

My work on the article is not complete ... still building. I have noticed some inconsistencies public records and am trying to sort some things out. I can't find a birth certificate (ergo, the maiden name — either "Nelson" or "Underhill" can't be confirmed. Ultimately, I will clean it up. Eurodog (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you connected to the subject? Eurodog (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No - are you? But, I do have access to Ancestry.com records, and one of the family trees on there (not a reliable source in itself - but can help in other information searches) suggests that in the 1920 US Census she was recorded in Galveston, Texas as Evelyn Underhill, the daughter of Laddie Ray Underhill (1891-1966) and his wife Anna D. Underhill (b. c.1896). They married in 1919, after Evelyn was born, so Anna may not have been Evelyn's mother. By 1930, L. Ray Underhill was living in New Orleans as a lodger - no sign of wife or daughter. No indication of where the name Nelson came from either. Let me know if you want me to do more searching. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The 1920 Census — dated 8 Jan 1920 — reflects Evelyn Underhill's age as 2-3/12, which would put DOB at about 8 Oct 1917. Her bio says 1 April 1917. For what it's worth, I have found 7 marriages for Laddie Ray Underhill, and have also found some un-explainable divorce/marriages for Bonnie Baker (re: Gailey in Florida ... they married in 1951, but again in 1975 (in Florida). I'm am still looking. Eurodog (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The date 1 April 1917 suggests to me that it might have been recorded at some point during the financial year 1917-18, which would have started around that date - so Oct 1917 is plausible (but WP:OR!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
PS: Don't know if you've picked up that when Claude Lakey, musician, age 27, of Tyler, Texas, married Martha Kuula in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, on 12 Nov 1937, the record states that he was not previously married. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Willie Clayton

Could you have a look in that book again ? "Tell Me" (1984 or 1989), "What a Way to Put It" (1984), "Never Too Late" (1989), and "I Wanna Be Where You Are" (1989) are all probable contenders. It seems this bloke veered around between R&B, soul, or blues as suited him or, more likely, his chances of some success. Born 1955 (four months younger than me) and still on the go - 27 albums and counting.

No rush - Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Five R&B hitlets no less: "Tell Me" #78 and "What A Way To Put It" #84, both in 1984, on the Compleat label, both produced by General Crook; then, as Will (not Willie) Clayton, "Never Too Late" #52 and "Tell Me" (a different song apparently) #74 in 1989, and at the end of that year "I Wanna Be Where You Are" with Audrey Wheeler (runner-up in Miss Black Universe!), #62 - those three on Polydor. He was born 29 March 1955 in Indianola, Mississippi; first recorded on the Duplex label in 1969, moved to Chicago in 1971. Does that help? For my sins, I have the equivalent book on country singles winging its way to me as we speak.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Brillianté - thank you. Well worth it for the runner up in Miss Black Universe, and General Crook links, alone. The latter almost trumps 'Peter Scott, 82, British cat burglar' making it onto Deaths in 2013. Willie's article should be before your eyes, your very eyes, afore Easter is out. I hope you enjoy the country singles book - I bloody hate country music. All that ridiculous Dolly Parton-esque singing voices, irrespective of where they come from (like Grimsby), allied to overly prolonged Hawaian guitar stuff. At least with the blues, the singer's dog drops dead and his wife leaves the State. Or, the other way round. In country music, all is resolved by the intervention of 'My Lord, Sweet Jesus', who manages to pull said mutt back from the brink and converts singer, producer, wife, and listener into an instant Mormon. I think I spelt the last word in that sentence correctly. Thanks again for your efforts.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't diss Dolly!! And what about Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, etc. etc..... (ok, I'll stop there) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I was not dissing dear old Dolly - just the other buggers who always sound like her. I have the original 1969 vinyl LP of At San Quentin..... (ok, I'll stop there too) - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I've just realised the page number quoted in Whitburn's book reference will not be correct. Could you oblige ? Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - a couple of tweaks as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have been searching around Allmusic and Discogs, trying to find the differentiation between the two "Tell Me"'s, without much success. The Compleat (1984) single, with record label showing General Crook as songwriter and producer, is quite clear. The latter song (or maybe, alternate version of the same one - Polydor, 1989) seems to be more muddled. It is hardly important, but I bet an aficionado might know. Sadly, I am not one.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Try this and this - they certainly sound different. There's some information on the 1989 song visible here - apparently written by Jon Bendich and Thor Baldursson, and produced by Lionel Job - the team also responsible for Starpoint (apparently - I haven't heard of these people!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again - it turns out that Audrey Wheeler is married to Will Downing; but you probably already knew that. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Blimey, Wheeler is a prolific backing vocalist, with credits on almost 30 Wikipedia album articles alone ! Plus mentions on Unlimited Touch, Sandra St. Victor, Bob Rosa and Will Downing. It's amazing what you find when you look. Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this person a reliable SPS?

I do not recognize the source you entered here as being a qualified professional reviewer. Am I missing something? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It demonstrates that they played in London in 2012 - not much more than that, unless you are feeling in a lenient frame of mind, but better than no source at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

Archive 15←Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive_20&oldid=1075196457"