Jump to content

User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45

The Shadows

When you made your reversion, did you act robotically in response to the blanket entry at MOS:THEMUSIC or did you research? 'The Shadows' as a name alone has always had a capitalized 'The'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shadows

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1222&bih=651&ei=r71KWuqQCsSWsAeJvpC4Bg&q=the+shadows&oq=the+shadows

Bossrat (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither of those links give any support to your opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

They were a couple, only; I did not think it required the preparation of a full case.

You cannot change history and you should be opposed in the imposition of Wikipedia's arbitrary and authoritarian ideals. Bossrat (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources that make it clear that the Shadows must be treated as an exception to the usual guidance in this case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Rick Hall

On 4 January 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Rick Hall, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT♦C 01:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tabloid

Tabloid is a factual statement - our own article on it say that it is a reference to format not content. It is not NPOV to start all other UK newspapers with a mention of format and then randomly exclude the Guardian - that does not seem to be NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Scott (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Please remember to WP:SIGN your posts. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting it is has always been tabloid - in the same way the Independent's article notes that it is a website in the lede. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your wording suggests exactly that. The article discusses the newspaper's history, website, etc., to which the word "tabloid" does not apply. Anyway, this is now a matter for the article talk page, where I assume other editors will contribute - not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, not that i'm saying you're Wrong by do that, but, i have a Doubt, why do the Page about the UK have to Have the location of the Country in the EU if the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union 1 year ago ? WhiteGuy1850 (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The UK remains a member of the EU until 29 March 2019 (at least). Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Bossyboots

Should you really be telling me what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edomrak52 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Rotherham

Should we not include the historic abuse of boys and british Asian girls? I understand that "most were white girls" which is correct, but british asian girls are not mentioned whatsoever within the article and yet they suffered abuse "that mirrored the other victims, such as being passed around for sex" which is mentioned in the Jay Report, is it not okay to have this included? supplementary to the "most" ?Americatcp (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not in the lede - the reference to most being white girls is enough. And by "british asian" you mean British Asian - with capitals. If you want to take this further, raise it on the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of Facebook as a source

Hi. Currently, by consensus, the Deaths pages (such as Deaths in 2018) do not allow use of Facebook posts as sources, due to the inate unreliability of the information being posted. Of the two entries you made today, I was able to find a more reliable source for one, but the other remains to be announced by the established and reliable press. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem - though in that particular case the source is unimpeachable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I know where you are coming from, but it's da rools. Sorted now. Ref (chew)(do) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Alice Leslie Carter and Alice Carter (blues singer)

I have come across a problem here. For some reason, Alice Carter (blues singer) redirects to Alice Leslie Carter. However, they are not the same person, note Alice Leslie Carter and Alice Carter. Worse still is the fact that Wikipedia's bio of ALC includes some details pertaining to AC. For example, the present ALC article states "competed in a blues-singing contest" - but that person was actually AC. Effectively Wiki is guilty of adding to the confusion (of which I maybe the prime suspect), although AllMusic for once, clearly differentiates between them. An article on AC should not be problematical to compose, but I am unsure of what to do about the present redirect on her name to ALC.

I am not certain which Carter, Messrs. Eagle and LeBlanc are referring to either. What a venerable bugger's muddle ! Any thoughts my friend ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I will give it some thought.... But, so far as I can see, Eagle and LeBlanc do not mention either of them. They are certainly not mentioned in the index to BARE. This edit was made by someone who is now blocked for socking, and I can't find any basis for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I've now removed the claims inserted by Mimillama. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that; although the problem remains concerning the 'double identity'. When you have some time, I would be grateful. Thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hit the North

Nice work, great to see it added this week. Ceoil (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, nice work, GrymTurtle. "Those big big big wide streets... Those useless MPs"! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try and tackle few more of their classic tracks in due course, if no-one beats me to it.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Even better than the real thing - Brix and Hanley] Ceoil (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Real Life Barnstar
"Dur-dur-dur-de-dur..." Thanks for this fantastic (or should that be "fucking fantastic, cock"?!) little gem. Great work, New Puritan, and all hail! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Better keep your eye on it though Guy, because, as we all know ... new facts emerge. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank U

Thanks for letting me know. I put that name there because it was the first ever Nina Simone song I heard in a Muller advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edomrak52 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

MES

Can we please stop the edit warring at Mark E. Smith. Let's forget who has the "right version" and just get down to discussing it all. You and Ceoil, certainly, should know better than to drift so far into the back and forth, and claims of BRD wear thin. I've said something similar, although very differently phrased, on Ceoil's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I've said nothing about BRD, and it's slightly bizarre to be accused in this way when the version that I support is (apart from minor grammatical and other fixes that I'm sure could easily be resolved) the version largely drafted by Ceoil himself here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It isn't slightly bizarre to refer to your actions as edit warring: you know the policies about reverting umpteen times and you were breaking them. It is disingenuous comments like yours above that cause people to become pissed off, as I am likely to become if you continue failing to see how your own culpability has added to the mess. You know I am right that the issues should be discussed rather than reverted and indeed admit it even while claiming my comment is slightly bizarre. That is child-like behaviour and you're better than that. - Sitush (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Little Sammy Davis

Hi there, forgive me for not really understanding exactly how this works but I have found a fact added by you on Little Sammy's Death that doesn't seem possible ? I am very close to Little Sammy Davis and can't see how he performed 3 days before his death ? He has not performed in years. I hope I am wrong somehow, please let me know how you came about this fact ? Thanks very much. John Rocklin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromatic1 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't added by me, it was added here by TDKR Chicago 101. It was sourced from this Facebook post, but I think is based on a misunderstanding. The author of the post said he had seen him three days previously - as a friend - not that he had seen him perform. I'll edit the wording, and thanks for noticing it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Folk rock

I've been doing a few touch-ups over at the folk rock article. It looks like the article needs a lot of work. There is just way too much in the Antecedents (a lot of that info would work better in the folk music article). Beyond the changes I made in the lead section, I don't know how to proceed, because I know that there was another editor who did a big expansion there a few years ago and I don't want him to feel we're trying to raid the article—when someone's worked that hard on something they're going to feel defensive (I had to go through that myself and concede that some of my previous additions to the garage rock article were too long and needed to be trimmed—I hope that the GR is more manageable in size now). One problem I encountered in the FR article is that it overstates the degree to which 1964-1967 folk rock as an equally Brish genre. But, I have mixed feelings:

On one hand:
  • The UK went through the skiffle movement in the 50s, which really was a precursor to folk rock, and many British 60s groups, such as the Beatles started there.
  • Lennon beat Dylan and the Byrds to the studio-punch with "I'm a Loser" in late '64 (that is if one doesn't count Dylan's 1963 "Mixed Up Confusion", which was probably more skiffle than folk rock)
  • The Animals beat everyone to the electric-punch with their version of "House of the Rising Sun"
On the other hand:
  • I'm not sure if there was a full-fledged folk rock genre in the UK between 1964-1967, but rather a folk rock strain within.
  • I'd usually say that for something to constitute a true full-fledged genre, it has to be a possible "first thing that comes to mind" (or at least regular) descriptor for an identifiable set of artists and that the style of sound associated with the genre label has to be the overriding feature in a band's sound (at least for a certain period of time).
  • No one would say "Oh, the Beatles, they're a folk rock band..." or "the Animals are folk rock band..." the same way they would about the Byrds. Folk rock is just part of what the Beales and Animals did.

So, would it be better for the lede to go like this [1] or this [2]? Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think your current version is a big improvement. Of course, blues music was essentially a folk music - and, essentially, all rock music developed through the addition of both amplification and stronger rhythms to previous musical traditions. (<<NB...OR!) I'll keep on keeping an eye on the article. It was a shame to have to get rid of "Untied Kingdom" though - how true that is! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was unsure whether what whether or not to put the UK there, so you've just made things a lot easier (perhaps we could move mention of the UK down into the clause a few lines below that addresses other places outside the US). And, then there's the question of what to do to trim things down in the main text, particularly in Antecedents. I know that a few years ago you and other editors had expressed a need to cut things down there. I might make a few more minor changes—you could take a look and see if they are OK. Then perhaps we could contact the editor who had done that expansion and see if he might accept the idea of some trims—I'd suppose he'd be OK if we "tiptoe" lightly. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Garagepunk66, I think I might be the editor you're talking about, regarding a big expansion on the folk rock article a few years back. The majority of the Antecedents section was written and researched by me, as was the Byrds and (I think) the Bob Dylan sections. Firstly, let me say that I've been watching the changes you've made to the article so far, and I think you're doing great work, so well done.
Regarding the removal of material I wrote and researched, as I recently wrote on the article's talk page, I don't mind if some of the text/information I added is relocated to other articles, as long as attribution is maintained, obviously. However, I think you/we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water and mistakenly eliminate material that provides context within this article. For instance, the Beatles' adoption of folk/protest elements and how the band first encountered them in Bob Dylan's music, along with George Harrison's distinctive 12-string Rickenbacker sound and its influence on the Byrds and folk rock in general, are all just as relevant to this article as they might be to the Cultural impact of the Beatles one, for example. Also, as someone who's worked very closely on the Byrds-related articles, I can say with 100% certainty that there is nothing in the Byrds section of the folk rock article that isn't already in the Byrds one. So, I would advise against relocating anything there. Hope that helps.
By the way, while I have you and Ghmyrtle's attention, I wonder if I might ask you both a favour (it's why I was here on Ghmyrtle's talk page in the first place and spotted the above discussion): there's a discussion between myself and another editor here regarding what he sees as the non-neutral use of the word "noted", when used to express a critic's opinion, as in, "Band biographer John Doe has noted that the album is the pinnacle of the band's sonic experimentation". He wants to change the word "noted" to "stated", "opined" or "remarked". Myself, I've always understood the word "noted" in this context to be virtually synonymous with "remark" and have provided links to dictionary.com that appear to back this up. Maybe I'm wrong about that though, but I'd appreciate you taking both weighing in on the discussion to help clarify this issue and perhaps give your thoughts on the non-neutral quality of the article in general. Many thanks. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
No need to worry Kohoutek1138. Any reductions should be done with the utmost care—we all agree that any material taken out of the folk rock article should be either moved into other folk-related articles or already be included in those other articles, so that no information is lost. At some point we could get this article ready for GA, and if so, I think that you should be the one to nominate it, since you have put so much into it. As for the Byrds' album, I wouldn't imagine that that kind wording makes much difference, but from my experience, if another editor feels so strongly about something so small as slight a wording change that minor, it is usually best to go along with his/her wish——we've all heard people say "pick your battles". So by giving that editor their way this time around, they might agree with you in the future on an issue more important, or if they don't, then come-the-time, you'll take a strong stand for that really important issue when you need to. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Wise words Garagepunk66, regarding the discussion/argument I'm currently engaged in around use of the word "noted". As for the folk rock article, do you want me to handle the breaking up, reducing and relocating of the Antecedents section? Maybe that's best, since I added it. Obviously you can weigh in with any changes you want to as well, but yeah...let me know. As for nominating the article for a GA review, come the time, I'm more than happy to do that, but my feeling has always been that getting it up to GA status might prove problematic, due to the lack of readily available sources/reliable information on the global variations of folk rock, such as Central Europe and the Balkans, The Soviet Union and its successor states, and East Asia etc. I don't know how we'd ever get these sections GA-ready. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I definitely think that you would be the best person to make those trims and transfers of material, Kohoutek1138, and I (and I'm sure everyone else) would be glad to give any helpful feedback. As for GA, I think that the article could indeed achieve it, but all of those various nationalities sections could use a lot of trimming. For instance the eastern European and Slavic sections could be condensed and perhaps consolidated into one section. We could find reliable sources for the key statements that remain. Some of the other countries' sections could be merged and condensed as well, using reliable sources for what we keep. Even though they weren't a full-fledged folk rock band, we could probably add mention of Led Zeppelin during their period circa '70 and '71 on III and IV albums, because their adoption of folk (they were definitely influenced by Fairport convention, etc.) during those years is so often mentioned. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at the Antecedents section in the coming days. Happy to try for a GA standard with this artcle, and as you say, it might be doable. I agree about Led Zep too: they definitely had folk rock elements to their music and, speaking entirely subjectively, their folk influences are what really make them special and separate them from so many of their early 70s blues rock contemporaries. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Tina Turner's legs

No problem. People just add in anything for no good reason, I swear. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 16:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ellesmere Port

Sorry, I was called away for a large part of this afternoon and immediately took action as you can read when I returned and saw what had been going on. I hope things will calm down a bit now for us all.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made a request at WP:RPP, but not sure if would be considered appropriate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah... OK, I see you've done it. Thanks! Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Camille Howard.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Camille Howard.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, Nesnad has decreed that it's better if we replace a perfectly good image of a long-deceased and fairly obscure performer with an infinitely crappier print version of the same image. I'm sure that's a good idea. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ken Dodd Happiness.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ken Dodd Happiness.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Billy Fury

Gosh! Maybe if I waste a decade or more of my life on here I'll know such a lot like you so "obviously" do. Fiery Billy (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You will see that I have improved the whole of the "Legacy" section in that article by combining all the single-sentence paragraphs into a coherent whole. I have included the latest single-sentence paragraph that was so condescendingly created by you. Have a nice day. Fiery Billy (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good work. Not sure why you think I was "condescending". Though there are times when we may quarrel, I can't stay mad at you for more than just a minute or two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Dismissing valid (though hardly key) information with a comment like "non-notable trivia, but referenced at least" is not the best way to encourage a newcomer, especially as you took no action against an exactly similar item in the preceding paragraph. Okay, let us leave this with a virtual handshake and move on. Like you, I'm rarely annoyed with anyone for long. All the best. Fiery Billy (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Heddiw

Penblwydd hapus! Deb (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Morris Jefferson

Greetings, old friend. Could you have a look in your Billboard R&B book and see if Mr. Jefferson has a listing. Any other information appreciated. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "Spank Your Blank Blank" is listed, #34 R&B.... but nothing else there about him. However, I found him here... not a reliable source, but it leads to here. His site www.todaysgospelmusic.com seems to be defunked. Not much help really.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
It is far better than nothing. Defunked or otherwise ! Article duly expanded a tad. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Randy McAllister

Are there enough clues in this newly cobbled together article, for you to determine a birth date for this Grammy nominated musician ? My guess is 1959, but I could not really find anything online to help me. No big deal if you have bigger fish to fry. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone would think you were encouraging me to undertake original research.... [3], [4] suggest 18 December 1959 for Randall D. McAllister, but I can't find a usable source I'm afraid. You might be able to get away with "c.1959", perhaps.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I am always trying to lead folk astray ! Thanks for your efforts - I think I'll leave the DOB blank for the time being. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Miss Frankie

Could you take a look at the present effort in my sand bucket. I was drawn to her case by noting she was the only red entry in the List of classic female blues singers. Can't be too difficult I thought, even allowing for the usual "we don't know anything about her but her recordings", I thought. What a case it turned out to be, with enough red herrings to keep Miss Marple busy ! I have tried to steer a line between what is reasonably certain, and muddied the article with what is not. I am not sure I have got the balance quite right. When you have the time, and the patience to wade through the copious references, I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. Can't find any more information about her, sorry.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. She is now on the mainframe for all to goggle at and be amazed (or, more likely, not). Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:How Many More Years.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:How Many More Years.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Bristol meetup

You have previously attended or expressed an interest in attending a meetup in Bristol. I am organising one for this summer - provisionally Saturday 1 September 2018. For details see m:Meetup/Bristol/3 to join the discussion, including expressing preferences about dates and venues, see the talk page at m:Talk:Meetup/Bristol/3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40→Archive 45
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive_38&oldid=852246363"