Wikipedia

User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 31

< User talk:Ghmyrtle
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Martinevans123 in topic Re: Tina Turner
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Elizabeth II

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ghmyrtle- You recently commented in an RfC at Talk:Elizabeth II. Unfortunately, the wording of the RfC when first posted did not properly outline the actual issues in dispute. The opening statement of the RfC has since been revised. If that change leads you do a different conclusion, please alter your remarks at the RfC. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)]

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion


Check before revert

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

unexplained change. Explain what the problem is on the talk page. Perhaps you should consult the talk page first. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You briefly left tags on the article, and then deleted the whole paragraph. You have so far not, at any stage, explained on the article talk page the problem you have with the wording. I suggest you do that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jim Sullivan

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Have you heard of this singer-songwriter ? I had not until today, and his style of music is not really my cup of tea, but I though you might be interested. His life/death story seems quite intriguing anyway. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, the name - and the story - are vaguely familiar. I shall get to work! (Sometime? Maybe?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
↑ Note: it's turned blue... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow - well done, that was mighty quick ! A strange tale indeed. Bravo, dear boy. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
PS. Showing willing, I managed to add wikilinks to Jim Hughart, Light in the Attic Records and Playboy Records - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

BBC

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

No problem. Just seemed undue to quote two provocative "no, the opposite!" think pieces from two journos in a section that's meant to serve as an overview of the entirety of controversy at the BBC. We should really be trying to write a condensed summary of the Criticism of the BBC article here. --McGeddon (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've warned the new editor, and invited them to discuss on the talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:AN3 also requires the edit warrior to have actively ignored an existing thread on the article's talk page, so it's important to start one. No need to tag-team anyone here (and I'd already reverted before seeing your message on my talk page), I'm sure the BBC article is on enough watchlists. --McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop deleting my factual contributions to the BBC page

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge121 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Now, please go back to the article talk page, and discuss your suggested edits with the people there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Alexis P. Suter

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Could you have a look to see if you could unearth the date of birth for this newly created article. She was born in Brooklyn, New York, as far as I can ascertain, and she appears to use her birth name. Parents are Carrie and Albert Suter, if that helps. I do not know what (if anything) the P stands for, although P. Suter (peashooter, hee hee, may be a joke). I would guess it is around 1970. Hardly vital, or urgent, but you know how it is. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Here ya go..... Name: Alexis P Suter, Birth Date: 15 Feb 1963. Source Information: Ancestry.com. U.S. Public Records Index, 1950-1993, Volume 2 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Confirmed here (can you access LinkedIn?). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks - I can not access LinkedIn as it turns out - is it deemed 'reliable' ? Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Well... it's user-generated, so I suppose not. But it is her confirmation that the apparently public record of her birth is correct. Per WP:DOB, you might prefer just to go with the year. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Nah... I prefer ignore the lot of them. Nobody, except me and thee of course, ever reads these blues articles anyhow. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll on the use of The Rt. Hon.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. I have created a straw poll on whether The Right Honourable should be used in infoboxes for all Barons, Viscounts and Earls or just for Privy Counsellors. The poll is here. I wish that you could give your opinion there and maybe comment. --Editor FIN (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found a plagiarized article

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ghmyrtle-I noticed that you have reverted the Salmon P. Chase article from a vandalized edit written in Portuguese. I have recently discovered wholesale and long-standing plagiarism in that article. It is so pervasive throughout the article that it would probably require a complete rewrite. You seem to be an experienced editor, how would you proceed? Oldsanfelipe (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)oldsanfelipe

I've replied on your talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Liverpool Met population

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know you probably have it on your watch list but would appreciate your input when you are next around. Koncorde (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to get involved in this. If different authoritative bodies use different definitions that result in different figures, the answer is to set them all out in the article (using footnotes if necessary), rather than asserting that any one definition should have precedence over another. That's just a general expression of my view, rather than a comment on the actions of any of the editors involved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Garage rock article GA review

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'll be putting the Garage rock article up for GA review in the next day or so. I'm guessing that everything is ready to roll, but if you see anything that needs to be tidied up or fixed... I might try to get a source for the "needs citation" statement in the revivals section. Down the road I'd like to have the article reviewed for FA, but it needs some things first before it gets to that step. Ever my sincerest thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will take a look through it, and also see if I have any good sources offline that might help. Good luck! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much! If it wasn't for your helpful mentorship, I would not have been able to do this. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not too happy about the British section. I feel it misrepresents what happened in Britain, and there is an overemphasis on some aspects which don't really fit in a "garage rock" article (including bands such as The Equals - good, and interesting, as they were). I know I need to find other sources, though (and, also, some time, do much more work on articles like beat music). There is also a need to incorporate some of the threads of the (quite good) articles on British rock and roll and British rhythm and blues. I'll try to do some more work on the GR article in a sandbox - though unfortunately this week is not a good time for my involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
I was very busy, so I didn't see this message earlier in the week. I never realized the degree to which you felt it misrepresented Britain--I wish that we could have dealt with this a couple of months ago. You're perfectly within your rights to make changes, but now I think they way it is will make the reader fail to see the connections to garage--connections which I think are vital and solidly founded--and while there are some good additions, it needs to be more to the point. So, I ask you to consider some of the issues I raised. All of those points were related to the substance of the article. So, I don't see the need of the WP: Own! thing--I have no thought of ownership, and that to suggest it is outside of the bounds of the particulars I brought up and which I had a right to raise. I actually wanted you to get involved, but I never realized it would be something this dramatic--while the article is under review, and I was told by several people that the article had good prospects for GA--now I have a fear that changes too radical could jeopardize the review process. We are hashing out things now that we should have dealt with a while back. I actually thank you for being involved--I just want to see that it comes our right, but please give it priority (and not wait) and see if you can make some further changes where we can find it mutually acceptable.
  • Now, moving on to other matters that are not directly related to this, but where I am now prompted to speak. I ask you to be ever-aware of me as a person and as an editor and try to have some compassion and understanding. You need to realize that the accolades and gravitas which you are accustomed to receiving on a regular basis, I have to live largely without--even after creating numerous articles and expanding a major music article almost tenfold and expanding it from under 50 edits to almost 400. As a highly experienced editor, you are probably one of the few people who will ever understand what it is like to work on a project of this size, which has felt like doing the equivalent of 40 articles or more, but with a lot more headaches, a lot more heartbreaks, a lot more worries. This is hard work--we don't get paid to do this, and I have a busy job outside of Wiki. There are times I have to ask myself, why am I going though all this trouble? But nonetheless I continue, but at times I feel like I am being discouraged rather than encouraged, and sometimes feel unappreciated. I ask you to please put yourself in my shoes and try to understand. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The GA process has now been put on hold, so I ask that we come to consensus on this as quickly as possible--please prioritize the next changes you be making--you have indicated a willingness to address some of my concerns, so there is no reason why I would not accept whatever your result, but please, lets get this resolved quickly. I will be amendable. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Big thank you! The new wording is marvelous--much better that what I had. God bless you..., oops, humanist non-theistic praise to you! I made a slight tweak at the bottom: I sprinkled a little "blues-based" salt to go with "onset" of psychedlia pepper for to go onto the freakbeat fish & chips--a flavour I think you'll like to go with a good bitter at the corner pub. Drink up and enjoy! We have the fantastic section now! Thank you so much (and thanx for return of the Equals--three cheers)! Bravo--masterpiece! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

UNWARRANTED REVERSION OF EDITS

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Master Editor III

Rather than robotically reverting edits, I suggest that you address the reasons why an editor is doing them. Find any evidence on the net or elsewhere to demonstrate to readers that the Movement for Socialism actually exists. If you do not wish to be hoisted by your own petard, then I suggest you do not construct one to hoist others.Greengauge121 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that, regardless of what you were seeking to do, you comprehensively cocked up the page by copy-pasting from the article page without using the "edit this page" button. What you left as the "article" did not deserve to be read by anyone, so I reverted you. I have no idea whether the "Movement for Socialism" exists or not, and no idea about the merits of that article. And please don't use CAPITALS unnecessarily - it's rude. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already admitted to making a mistake ("cocked up" as you so unceremoniously put it)as regards editing. In fact, what you reverted is unreadable. You have the temerity and audacity to accuse me of rudeness! How rude was your initial pompous put-down to me! I am deleting content because there is no evidence for its actual existence and so does not, according to your own criteria, belong on Wikipedia presented as facticity. Now, YOU ARE THE MASTER EDITOR III, I am requesting that you find that evidence in order to ensure that the content of the page (which will remain undeleted per se as page) remain undeleted. Instead of launching a vendetta (in collaboration with another) against me, GET ON WITH MY REQUEST, SUNSHINE! I am teeling you that there is no evidence or recent reference to denote its existence. You are the "MASTER". Find it! And do not reply to my posts with the a pompous disregarding levity ever again because I will [1] ignore them and [2] delete them for good measure. Greengauge121 (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not up to me, personally, to justify that text, or search for sources. It's up to you, if you are unhappy with its content, to flag up your concerns with other editors in general by putting the appropriate tags on the disputed sections, and/or by putting the article up for deletion if you think that is justified. The issue here is your behaviour, and refusal to learn proper editing processes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: Having said that, it's quite possible that your intention to delete or merge the article was well-founded. It's just that you tried to go about it in absolutely the wrong way, and rejected the advice you were given. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EVIDENCE

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Where is the concrete evidence that you are a "Master Editor III" and you are deserving of the Buffoonite gong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengauge (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 October 2015

It's a sort of joke title, taken from Wikipedia:Service awards - not to be taken too seriously. I do like "Buffoonite" though. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I do not like pompous, supercilious editors who enjoy the 'put-down' and place their articles on Wikipedia without scientifically adequate criteria. That should be taken more seriously, of course, because it brings the site's "objectivity" as a knowledge base into disrepute. Re : ethnicity in the UK Greengauge121 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Stoller legally changed his name from "Michael" to "Mike." Ergo, his proper full name is "Mike Stoller." However, it's true that his name at birth was "Michael." I would revert the edit—I have done so before—but I'm not sure what protocol is here. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for letting us know. Several sources have his name at birth as "Michael", so I'll tweak the text a little. Do any published sources confirm that he changed his name? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
PS: In my view, that article is still in quite a poor state, not befitting their stature. From your point of view, what would you consider the best sources - preferably online, but also offline - for improving and expanding the article? I know I've said before that I'll try to expand it, but this time I really mean it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
1) Well, his birth name is "Michael," so the sources are correct. I don't know if I have a published source for the name change: it's just one of those things I've known for as long as I can remember. I never needed to confirm it, y'know? It may be one of those things I just have to let go. "Michael" personally irks him, but the legality of the change has no historic significance one way or the other. It's not as if anyone outside a small circle of friends ever referred to Jerry Leiber as "Jerome."
2) Let me think about sources. The obvious one—already used throughout the article—is the autobiography. But, that's only one perspective, and not necessarily the best for all encyclopedic purposes. To my knowledge, no third party has written a really great, extensive, fact-oriented biographical article about them. Charlie Gillet's The Sound of the City could perhaps be more liberally quoted, though I'd have to read it again to be sure. Also, Robert Palmer's Baby, That Was Rock & Roll: The Legendary Leiber and Stoller; Ken Emerson's Always Magic in the Air (though with reservations—Mike says the book is filled with errors); and the booklet for Rhino's 50 Coastin' Classics by the Coasters. These are obviously print sources. Let me review them later this week and see if I can point you to good pages. Pstoller (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That would be great, thanks. I'm not sure how much time I'll have in the short term, but I'll see if I can tweak the article somewhat based on the sources I have (including Gillett, some of Palmer's work but not that book... etc.), as well as good online sources (if they exist!). Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Help

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I assume it is just me, but my Wiki text/font size (and everything else therein) seems to have mysteriously downsized to around 75% of the norm. I do not know what to do to correct this ! Do you - apart from buying a magnifying glass, of course ?? Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't you just hit Ctrl and + to get the size back? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I can ! Wow, thanks a lot. I feel a little foolish now - not for the first time it must be said.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"In critical condition"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Must be, then - I consider myself relatively well-versed in the differences between our tongues, but I've never heard "In a critical condition" before. "In critical condition", however, is a staple of the nightly newscast where I come from. :-)

As it's a difference in styles of English, I'll reverse myself. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

List of garage rock compilations is back!

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The list of garage rock compilations has returned by popular demand! So, I was thinking we all could keep an eye on it to protect it from deletionsits, as we seek to greater populate it with sourced and blue-link entries. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As much as I'm happy with the effort, nothing has changed from the last article about this subject. I'm assuming you copy and pasted from the original and added some other albums, but it's terribly disorganized. It would have been better to keep it in the sandbox and work on it instead of rushing it into the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, a user would have a strong case to delete the article on the same merit as the first deleted version.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned the introductory text slightly and added the comps we've worked on. Perhaps I should have saved it longer in the sandbox, true, but I feel that it is a resource desperately needed right now--because we are working on a lot of compilations that need to have exposure and not be semi-orphaned. If people don't have a way to see these articles we write, then our efforts will be in vain. Perhaps I could go in delete all of the non-blue linked or sourced comps on the list (we can add them back later). Keep in mind that the list was there for years, so it is unlikely that anyone will try to ax it in the meantime. We will have time to work on it and tidy it up (and I'll be the first to agree that it needs a lot of work). Also keep in mind that I changed the title--you indicated that the old title was a big part of their decision to delete the old article. And, agreeing 100% with everything you've said, I was inclined to leave it in my sandbox for much longer. But last night I was thinking about the comps we've been working so hard on (i.e. you've been working the Green Crystal Ties) and I came to the realization that it would not be fair you or I to see these things get buried under a cloud of invisible haze. So, I decided to re-introduce the article, but under the safe assumption that all hands will be on the deck to improve it. So, let's make it better. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You will be glad to see that I went in and eliminated a whole lot of unnecessary explanation in the text--this is a list after all. I made some organizational changes in list, but I will be doing a lot more. Keep in mind that this is not a finished product, so as a work in progress it will evolve into something much better--but this has to be all of our work (not just mine). That is why I took it out of the sandbox--so we can all work on it together. By the way, I went in and took out all non-sourced or non blue-linked entries. You will be glad to see that the list is now different form its prior form, and I don't think we should have a problem with deletionists now. For all prior entries, I have saved them in my sandbox #10. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  The Editor's Barnstar
I would like to give this token of appreciation to you for all of your outstanding efforts and accomplishments over the years, which I don't think I could ever possibly hope to match. I also want to commend you for your knack for collaboration. I am always amazed at what we come up with when we work together. Sometimes we lock horns, yes, but like flint rubbing stone, our collaboration always ignites into a glowing and brilliant fire. And I thank you for every exiting opportunity I've had the chance to work with you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeremiah Johnson (blues musician)

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Can you do any better on the birth information for this up and coming blues musician ? His mother is Jo Biagioli and he was born in St. Louis in 1972. See my sandbox for further leads. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not much help on this one. There was a Jeremiah L. Johnson born in St. Louis on 7 August 1974, and various other Jeremiah Johnsons born elsewhere in Missouri from 1975 on.... but none of those may be him. Of course, it could just be a nickname, taken on after the movie became popular. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks anyway - article now in the mainframe for everyone to marvel at. Tee hee. Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I Am Woman

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the co-writer of the song I Am Woman I do not have a conflict of interest in the article other than there are claims made about me that are legally wrong and all I request is that the facts, which are dutifully supported with references, that I have submitted without bias or malice be accepted.

The Edit is as follows:-

Fallout with Burton

Due to work-permit problems in 1971 Ray Burton had no option other than return to Australia and watch the song’s stellar rise in the US from a distance. “it could have been the launching pad for a song writing and singing career in the US,” he said. “They took advantage of the fact I wasn’t there to protect my financial and professional interests.”

In 1998 he was forced to take legal action against the singer to recover a portion of his songwriter royalties that had been withheld form him since 1972. He said: “I got some money out of it, but nothing like it would have been in the ‘70s when it was riding high.”

Paragraph 3 stands as is.

Ray Burton’s career as a singer/songwriter continued to flourish in Australia [1] where he founded the band AYERS ROCK, then as a solo artists with a heavy hitting line up of Australian musicians continued to do major tours supporting major acts including QUEEN. [2] 1977 he wrote and recorded another album with Warner Bros. titled Dreamers and Nightflyers. [3] His career as a songwriter and singer lists close to 40 recorded original songs in Australia and the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayburtonmusic (talk • contribs) 10:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.rayburtonmusic.com/gallery/d-n2.html
  2. ^ http://www.rayburtonmusic.com/gallery/d-n1.html
  3. ^ http://www.rayburtonmusic.com/history.html

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rhythm and blues change makes no sense

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It doesn't matter if it's "contemporary RnB" It's still RnB and people might not know the difference. Old RnB transitioned and molded new RnB and people need to know the history on the main page. Don't edit it if you have no knowledge on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuyJY (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to be hostile. You edited the article which - before your edits - dealt solely with R&B before about 1980. Your edits would have been better at the article on Contemporary R&B - which deals with R&B after about 1980. But, you didn't edit that article - you edited a different article. So, I made the two articles more compatible with each other by adding a second link to the Contemporary R&B article, and by copy-editing your text for style - which is a perfectly acceptable, normal and routine activity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  The Barnstar of Wiki Coal Mining
For diligent work with pick and shovel, and general cleaning up, over at Allen Toussaint.... Betty says "Shoorah! Shoorah!" Keep up the good work "Mr 585"! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to get along. Must try harder! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Great to see the load being evenly spread. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
... so endeth my contribtions there. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Tidbit about the Equals...

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for re-instating the Equals to the British section of the Garage rock article. And, of course you've heard me say that I like the way the section looks right now (when I said "perfect"--you know that I meant that as a way of healing and extending the olive branch--I know nothing is perfect). But, a couple of things:

  1. I would like to re-instate some to the biographical/contextual parts of the statement about the Equals that were previously there, say for instance the things about Eddie Grant and Derv Gordon and their song later covered by the Clash. Let me tell you why I think those mentions are important. Here in the States, the Equals are a completely unknown entity. Yet, Eddie Grant is known here--he had the huge hit w/ "Electric Avenue" (and best-selling album) in the 80s. And, of course people here are more than sufficiently aware of the Clash, so much so that they would be inclined to think that the Clash wrote the original version of "Police on My Back" themselves. So, by putting in those biographical "grace notes," I established a meaningful context in which their group can be properly appreciated by readers in this country. I think that the statement has now lost its previous richness. In various places in the article, I have tried to include some biographical "a ha" moments that people might find interesting and enlightening. That means a lot to me.
  2. I would like to make ever-so-slight changes in the opening statement of the section when it reads "distinctive style." I think that "distinctly defined genre" would work better. That is not due to any disagreement on substance, but just more precise wording. In American English "distinctive" has more of a qualitative meaning, whereas "distinct" is more quantitative, which is what we're attempting to express. "Genre" is more precise than style--because there were similar stylistic elements, and there, as we say. Definition is a part of this equation:
  • Nobody in the states saw garage rock as any kind of genre or separate entity in the 60s (much like England). Yes, there were bands playing in garages then (a lot more of them), but that is no different than now when we have garage bands playing heavy metal, AC/DC, Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Kiss, or whatever else (very rarely would you hear a suburban garage band today play anything that sounds remotely like garage rock in the way we define the 60s style--people who play the garage style today are usually older and "rock historians"). 60s American Garage rock was identified defined later on (in the early 70s--maybe even colloquially the very late 60s, but that is just a hunch of mine). In no way does any of this negate its existence--it is a genre that exists of "ineffable" nature.
  • One thing... Wasn't that thing about ownership a bit unfair? You will find this a bit surprising, but there was once a time when I was actually afraid to make more than small edits in a "big-genre" article such as Garage rock. I (and others) begged for major expansion for a long time on the talk page, in hopes that the ranking editors who I considered almost like owners, would be the ones to do it. But, I waited and nobody was willing (I realize that other editors have other priorities, and that is perfectly OK). But, I also realized that if there was going to be an expansion, that I must be the one to do it--and that it might just turn out to be my calling and ace in the deck, and that I might be the one most ideally suited for this particular task. There may be editors who are superior to me in a thousand other ways--but this could be a place where I could contribute in a particularly helpful and meaningful way. I have to confess that I feel that some of the ranking editors saw my contribution as an intrusion rather than as an asset (and that is OK, because they were there before me). But, I took on the challenge, having no idea what kind of headaches I was getting into--I do not think there is a soul here who understands how much work has gone into this. Really quite frankly, it has brought me a load of grief, though I am rightfully proud of my work. And if you remember, didn't I give one certain editor carte-blanche to go into my sandbox a few months ago, long before the review? But, now there is a review taking place that is beginning to go on too long and that has me worried. Right now feel that I am being hung on the rack for doing my part diligently and having the courage to stand up (rightly or wrongly) for what I believe to be best for the article. Can you please say something to help make sure this thing does not get permanently stalled and that it can get safely over the finish line? Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. The basic problem I have is that I don't think that the Equals were a "garage band" who played "garage rock", or for that matter "freakbeat". Do you have reliable sources that say they were? If not, they should not be mentioned in the article at all. But, I was prepared to compromise with you, and mention them in passing. Readers who want to know more can simply click on the link to their article. The Clash were a highly derivative band who got their material from many sources - the fact that they covered an Equals song is not relevant at all, in my view, to the issue of whether the Equals should be covered in the garage rock article.
  2. Changing "distinctive style" to "distinctly defined genre" would be an improvement.
  3. I don't have any say over the GA process, and have no wish to get involved in it other than to help make corrections and adjustments to the article if it helps.
  4. I'm conscious that anything I say about your editing style might be taken as criticism - so I'll just say, firstly, that you do excellent work here for which some of us are very grateful; and, secondly, that your detailed attentiveness to the precise wording of both articles, and your comments on talk pages, is different to the way most people operate here, and can be quite difficult for others to deal with. Put simply, I sometimes think you need to realise that other editors don't care quite as much you do. It's important work, but we all need to be aware of how fragile our work here is - it can disappear as soon as someone comes up with better sources, or a better form of words. In two words - lighten up. But, that does not mean that I'm dismissive of what you do - you should be proud of your work here. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and I appreciate you saying those kind things, and I'll try to lighten up (when I'm finished this biting of nails). I realize that I might get emotional about this article and its topic, because it means so much to me and I'm just so passionate about it (a topic that is highly misunderstood and overlooked in my opinion)--but that is probably why I am the right person to do the expansion--I'm probably the only person crazy enough to really dig into this kind of obscure material. And, if there are problems in my editing style people can point that out on my user talk page (you are welcome to do that there any time)--but article talk pages should be only about particulars, themes, and content of articles, unless another editor is being personal there, which I never do--I may go into too much detail and explanation sometimes, but I really do try to keep things topic & specifics-related. I will be very glad when I'm through with this expansion (probably this summer), because come that time I'll be able breathe a big sigh of relief, laugh a little more and move on to other things--I think you will find me very pleasant after that (I guarantee!). As for the Equals:
I agree and would not go so far as to formally categorize the Equals as freakbeat or garage rock, but I still think they are a tie-in stylistically (with their punky, upbeat sound)--and they were active and recording in the mid-60s--two years before they had a hit with the song they recorded in '66. But, AllMusic mentions "freakbeat" and "garage" in the side bar to describe them.[1] Now, I realize that AllMusic sidebars are not perfect, but the two terms are still used there (perhaps as secondary descriptors). I mentioned the biographical stuff about the Equals the same way I mentioned Steve Howe for the Syndicats--because it is essential biographical information that should always be mentioned--and the thing about the Clash is notable. For me, the British section is not so much there to formally define British bands as "garage" (I realize that the Troggs and couple of others may be notable exceptions--and that sometimes even the Pretty Things the early Kinks have occasionally gotten the "garage" tag), but rather to discuss the bands who are tie-ins stylistically and are of vital interest to garage enthusiasts--to show that there is a meaningful and vital connection. Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I just made the slight change of wording you OK'd in the opening statement to read "distinctly defined garage rock genre." I moved the quartet of references to the end of the sentence, because the last ref. pertains to the freakbeat part of the statement. Meaning still identical. Just little "tweaks."
As for the Equals, I think that AllMusic's characterization allows us to mention them. I also found a source in the Stranger that goes as far as to call them a "garage band" in the title.[2] Not that I would go that far. But, since we have carefully set up the whole context of the British section to be one of tie-ins, "parallels," and "counterparts," etc., the reader does not expect us to formally define the Equals as garage rock, but merely to establish a vital connection. You have a point about the Clash--we could leave their mention out--but maybe re-instate mentions of Derv Gordon and Eddie Grant ("Electric Avenue") as useful background, to help American readers make a meaningful connection. Would that be OK? Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No - you are trying to make them out to be a special case, for some reason. If people want to find out more about the Equals, they click on the link. Please stick to consistent indenting here, as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the addition of the source. I didn't think you'd mind it--it was only being used as a backup source behind the one in front of it--you had said you wanted more sources, but I realize it wasn't he best. As for the Equals, you don't need to worry--I have no wish to single them out--just include biographical tidbits like I do for so many others--for instance I had a field day with the Troggs! I wanted to say more about certain other bands here, like the Downliners Sect, but I wasn't finding helpful sources at the time. I just try to keep the readers in mind--this is a long article--but I don't want it to read like the phone book--so I try to find mini-narratives that keep things interesting and seize on those all-important "teachable moments." No preference for the Equals--just trying to make their story interesting and illuminating like everyone else's. But, I'll leave it up to you. Oh yes, and cheers. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bush, John. "The Equals". AllMusic. AllMusic, a division of All Media Network, LLC. Retrieved November 14, 2015.
  2. ^ Nipper, Mike. "It's May 29, 2013 and You're in a Rad Garage Band - The Equals". The Stranger. Index Newspapers LLC. Retrieved November 14, 2015.

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Fabulous Peps

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are this lot notable ? Frankly, I do not know if the Fabulous Peps made the US charts or not, but they are probably more your cup of tea than mine. According to the Rhythm and Blues Music Hall of Fame article they were therein inducted in 2015, although there does not appear to be a reference for this 'fact'. The Peps seem to be about the only 'non-notable' in that club.

Secondly, could you look and see if E.C. Scott had a US R&B hit (probably not before 1994, if at all). I may create an article on her in the forseeable. Talking of which I am only a few weeks short of my 10th anniversary on Wiki. "It does not seem like five minutes..." etc. I also discover today that, having already undertaken 147,000 edits, if I live long enough then I'll qualify as 'Lord Gormless, the Highest Togneme of the Encyclopedia' in six years time. That's enough to make anyone choke on their apple strudel ! All the best,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. I note that the Dead Rock Stars Club appears to be in mortal danger of itself expiring.

I had the same query about the Fabulous Peps - they seem to have a profile (Hall of Fame - seems genuine - Allmusic article) out of proportion to what they achieved - no R&B chart hits, for example, and rather a short discography - but I was thinking of doing some more research into them. They're mentioned here, for example. I can't help you about E.C. Scott, I'm afraid - my R&B "bible" only goes up to 1995, and she isn't mentioned there. Shame about the Dead Rock Stars Club - it's been useful, if a little eccentric! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Allen Toussaint

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I've made some additions of text and sources to the Allen Toussaint article. I made some critical corrections about his evolution to funk which started earlier than what was previously suggested (I mentioned that on the talk page of the article). I moved discussion of the Meters as a backup group to the new Sansu sub-section. I've filled in some of the narrative gaps. I think you will like the changes a lot. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: Do you think that we've made enough improvements to where we can nominate the article for ITN? If so, would you like me to give it a try or would you like to nominate it, yourself, because I think you've done more than I there? Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It's too late for ITN now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, we can try to make it the best article it can be in any event. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S.: I like the article you did on the Dew Drop Inn. I drove by there today, but it does not look like the renovations have begun. I have a feeling it will take some time. Apparently the owners did not have insurance, and that part of town flooded badly during Katrina, so there is going to have to be a big infusion of donor cash to get the project off the ground. Luckily, the building is still standing, but needs a lot of work. But, I'll keep an eye on that situation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I mentioned the Magnolia Housing Project, which used to be across the street (it is now the Harmony Oaks Hope VI development) from the Dew Drop. One interesting footnote: nearby was also the old Flight-Goodridge Hospital. I grew up not too far away--about a half-mile from this area--right now I'm living about a mile away. I might do an article on the Flint Goodridge Hospital--I believe it was an African American owned hospital. Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I did the article on the Flint-Goodridge Hospital, which was just a couple of blocks from the Dew Drop Inn. so I hope you enjoy it. Do give it a glance. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your userpage

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

You may, if you look, see that I have been in and out of your userpage. The vandal who you recently reverted left a CSD template hidden on the page, and deleting and reverting was the only way I could see to remove it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see anything, but thanks for checking. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Same vandal hit me, can you also check for booby traps at mine? Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:British Empire

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

British Empire | Talk

Have optimised[1] previous topic as has been previously noted may be the approach and concluded to a single sentence, if you will you be so kind to have a look.
Talk:British Empire:British Empire as realm

--KING (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "optimize: UK usually optimise". Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus. Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved 24 November 2015. optimize {verb} [Transitive] (UK usually optimise)
See WP:PATENT and word salad. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reds or blues

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You will be aware that I have a 'footnote' on my user page (for over four years now) entitled 'Reds or blues', which presently contains only four individuals. The lowest number for quite some time, and a figure that I wish I could expand, but potential sources seem to be drying up. Anyhow, that is not the real conundrum.

I constantly struggle to justify, to myself if no one else, the 'notability' of these blues men and women and generally try to reconcile the situation in my own mind, in case I am ultimately challenged on the matter. Perhaps it is that close connection with the subject matter that most stymies me, and I wonder if you could proffer a second opinion on the four that remain there, as to whether it is worth all the 'research' and time for me to conjure up an article for any of them.

There really is no rush on this one, and if you feel your efforts would be better utilised elsewhere, then I fully appreciate your position. As ever, cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Garage rock GA

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The GA barnstar
Excellent work you performed at the Garage rock article which is now assessed as a Good Article. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ghmyrtle for all your many contributions over the years to the garage rock article--I see my role as building on the foundation you've set. I've admired your work on the Intro and Characteristics sections--they're all wonderful. I especially enjoyed working together with you on the origins section. And, I must admit that the British section is looking real nice too these days! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

R&B category needed in "Mardi Gras Mambo" song info. box

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I may end up needing your help with something. I had added the R&B and Calypso categories into the info box for "Mardi Gras Mambo," but Neodop removed them. I realize that his intentions were good, but he is obviously not familiar with the song. As a lifelong resident of New Orleans, I am (like I have no doubt you are) aware that the Hawketts version of the song is a huge local favorite, and is played everywhere during Carnival season. I would say that probably most people around the world associate the song with the Hawketts' version. The article should be mainly precicated around their version. I realize that right now the earlier version is the one featured in the info box, but that may have to change. We may need to re-address the info box to suit the Hawketts' single, and then discuss the prior version as background. Or, perhaps we could create a new article for the Hawketts' version, because if their version has to take a second-chair there, then their version will need an article of it's own. People in New Orleans (and I'd imagine most others) just aren't going to relate to Mardi Gras Mambo being called a "country" song--we think of it as a Carribiean-tinged R&B song sung by Art Neville and his 1950s band. What should be done? Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.:If you would like, I could create the new article or go in and do a re-orientation of the existing one. Or, are two info boxes OK? Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I did not "remove" anything. There are two infoboxes, one for each single, as is customary in Wikipedia. I put the genres of the Hawketts version in the Hawketts single infobox. That's all; the body of the article explains it very well. Neodop (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with Neodop's edits. There is no problem with having two infoboxes in the same song article, for different versions - and, of course, different versions can be in different genres. Creating separate articles for different versions of the same song is definitely not a good idea, per WP:NSONG, etc. The current article text makes clear that the Hawketts' recording is the best known, so I don't really see an issue with it. If anyone wants to continue this discussion, the place to do that is the article talk page, not here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
If the two info boxes are OK with everyone else, than I'm fine with them too. I have to admit that I should have looked at things more carefully. I've been really busy--trying to squeeze out a bunch of new articles, while dealing with a busy work schedule, so sometimes I've been tired and operating on diminished energy as of late. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dick Shurman

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your input. I was mildly astonished to discover that the article has already been listed as C-Class, as I do not recall any such new article of mine being so assessed this swiftly.

Several have yet to even have a 'talk page'; Star Turn on 45 (Pints) (they made me laugh), Sidney Maiden, Shout! Shout! (Knock Yourself Out) (you may remember my fairly recent creation of this one), Shawn Holt & the Teardrops, Robert Curtis Smith, Little Willy Foster, Lil' Dave Thompson, Judas Jump (how did that subject matter creep into my psyche?), Jay Owens (musician), David Maxwell (musician), Andrew Odom, Ed Bell (musician) and Trampled Under Foot (band) Despite my long tenure here, I have never really worked out or understood how these things happen. Anyhow, thanks again,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's just up to whether some random "new pages patroller" spots the article and decides to give it a ranking, I think. Personally, I don't pay the slightest notice as to what class any article is given - it's just one person's opinion, and I ignore it. I was surprised Shurman didn't have an article - well spotted. So far as talk pages are concerned, I tag all of them with {{WikiProject Biography}} or {{WikiProject Song}}, etc. - just out of habit really, and to make the red link turn blue. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bristol Music Scene

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As the most local wikipedia editor I know of with knowledge of music articles can I ask how much interest/knowledge/sources you have related to the "Bristol Music Scene"? I'm currently working on the Cleanup list for WikiProject Bristol and it identifies multiple issues related to some of the music related articles - on which I have little knowledge:

Any help you could offer with any of these would be gratefully appreciated.— Rod talk 11:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll bear it in mind, but any music after about, say, 1980 is a foreign world to me... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
You are showing you age. I've struck though some I've done and will get to some of the others later I just thought it was more your thing than mine.— Rod talk 16:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Mike Kappus

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Once again I am prevailing on your good nature, to ask if you would take a quick peek to see if you can unearth a vaguely reliable birth date for this individual. The draft is in my sandbox. I reckon he was born in 1952 (or thereabouts). Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

May 24, 1950, it says here.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
God, I feel such a chump. I looked at that reference and missed that line completely. My school report was correct after all – "Must try harder". Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Song versions

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I am writing an article for the song "Farmer John", which was a big hit for the Premiers. I know off the bat it needs the original version by Don and Dewey, and obviously the Premiers, but I was wondering what deems other cover versions notable. Quite a few other artists like the Searchers and Neil Young recorded the song, so any help would help a lot to differentiate what is worth being placed into the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There's an interesting article here, some more information here, here, and here, and this article may be worth looking at. Hope that helps a little. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what I needed. Thanks for the help as always.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Tom toms article

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I see what you are saying, but shouldn't it be a "rewrite" tag and not a "cleanup" tag?Joel.Miles925 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

"Clean-up" really covers everything, including the need for a rewrite. Basically, the whole article (linking here for the benefit of any lurking TPS) is essentially unreferenced - or, at best, the citations are unclear. The style is unencyclopedic and non-neutral in part, and gives the impression of being more appropriate for a fanzine than an encyclopedia. There's also a lot of overlinking. I don't personally think it matters a whole lot which tags are at the top of the article, but tags should not be removed when no effort has been made to address the problems they identify. Rather than arguing over tags, the emphasis should be on rewriting the article - preferably, starting from scratch from the best available sources, and including clear citations. That way, I think much of the existing content can be maintained and improved - and, once that is done (but not before), the tags can be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right. There really isn't much productivity in arguing over tags... i'll leave the tag.Joel.Miles925 (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ghmyrtle. This edit here was reverted on the counts that it was incorrect grammar, and unnecessary in any case. If there is a grammatical problem, I would like to fix it. But I don't think it's unnecessary to mention an important detail about the article and leave it out. If there is anything I can do, don't hesitate to tell me. Thanks. (N0n3up (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

This is best discussed on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
There isn't really much to talk about. Since all the grammatical errors were fixed by the editor following me and you aren't really clear by what grammatical error there is in the phrase, so it's kinda hard to follow what you're getting at here. (N0n3up (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Season's Greetings (Cyfarchion y Tymor)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

.

Pick and choose according to taste: Have a Wassailing Winter Solstice (Gwasaela Heuldro'r Gaeaf), Merry Christmas (Nadolig Llawen), Grey Mare (Mari Lwyd) walkabout, or Happy New Year (Blwyddyn Newydd Dda).

May your celebration go with you. Robevans123 (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
 

Martinevans123Santas Grotto ... sends you warmest wishes for a:

"Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda"
 

May the true spirit of Christmas bless you with warmth and peace! ... And "Mele Kalikimaka" (Hawaiian Merry Christmas)!!

Dear Leg Thy Mr, Is there any policy about this? Such fun to be had, I see. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll be very disappointed if you don't change your signature to "I, Manservant". For, isn't that, in some very real and profound sense, what we all are? Malign Youth = Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Shucks, I just knew you'd spot that one. But of course, although pitifully gender laden, alas. Only 2722 others to choose from....Savant Miner beckons, of course, as does A Ravens Mint. Mr Insane Vat 123 (talk) 21:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ... don't start cheating now, Humanity Log!

Re: Tina Turner

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I see. I will look into it. People think they can add anything nowadays lol Thanks for the warning. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 01:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why tina turner has no legacy IN WIKI?

Diana_Ross to have a legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_Ross but tina turner no why ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calearm99 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The section in the Diana Ross article is not very well written or sourced, and the article as a whole is (unlike the Tina Turner article) not a "good article" - the two articles should not be compared directly with each other. Your edits on the Tina Turner article are, as I have said, poorly written (it may be that English is not your first language), poorly sourced, poorly formatted, duplicate other material on the page, and are unnecessary. They add almost nothing of encyclopedic value. I have asked one or two other editors to comment as well, on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

TINA TURNER as a gay icon

You cannot have an article about 'gay icons' without Tina Turner; she is a gay magnet Gay worldwide praise for Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calearm99 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I had one of those gay magnets once, but it just kept attracting poles. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's that season again...

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Some interesting info on the Deep

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I found an interesting article in Esquire about the Deep. I think we can now safely say they are form New York (rather than Philly). There are some amusing anecdotes about the session. I put some new sourced info in. I think that you will like the new info. Happy holidays! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

New editor who might need some direction

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that there is a new editor Iunaymanlar, who has made some edits to music articles. I had to revert his edit in the heading of the Garage rock article and undo a part in Ed Sullivan that looked out of place. I think that he means well and will turn out to be a good editor--he just needs a little bit of guidance until he learns the ropes. I don't know what to do about his edits in the R&B article. While though they are sourced, they need modification. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. They obviously have this book, and intend to make good use of it. Nothing wrong with that in principle - it seems to be a college quality textbook - but it may not be the best available source, and those of us without access to the book find it more difficult to judge the quality of the edits. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I need to get that book. My problem is in that editor's wording, which strikes me as needing further refinement. Thanks and Happy Holidays! Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks very likely to me that Idilozdemir is the same person - in which case WP:SOCK may apply. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Psychedelic garage section (to go in article) ready

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I just finished working on the psychedelic garage section for the garage rock article (it is in my sandbox #1). So, I thought I'd pass it by you for a first glance and for your initial thoughts. I think you will like it a lot. It includes a sub-section that goes into some of the historical backdrop of the era. I was thinking that the article could have a place to discuss garage rock's place in the whole socio-cultural framework of the 60s, and I thought that the section covering psychedelic influence would be the perfect place. To me garage rock signifies that last moment (at least here in the states) of our national innocence--that last "Normon Rockwell" moment that happened paradoxically amongst all of the turbulence and change--but I would imagine that everyone else around the world pretty much shared the same transition. At first I was reluctant to go into all of that--I had a Rolling Stone piece that went through the whole panorama--but it did not connect its generational overview directly to garage. But, later I found an academic case study done on the San Jose scene that takes the topography discussed Rolling Stone's piece--but applies it directly to garage bands and suburbia. And then, of course there is the discussion of the bands. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: But, let me know if there are any changes you want me to make before I put it in. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I have now entered the new text into the G.R. article. I hope that you like it. I pray that you are OK with the historical background stuff--I think we have the good sources to back it up. I worked extra hard to make the section illuminating--I hope that it captures in a nutshell the whole "gist" of the music and its era. That is what I was trying to do. Garagepunk66 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive_31&oldid=1077733254"