Wikipedia

User talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive 23

< User talk:Ghmyrtle
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Gamera1123 in topic From Gamera1123
Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 → Archive 30

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Chartist Mural, Newport

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Nice improvements to the Chartist Mural, Newport article, it's now looking very smart! I've noticed you wrote the long paragraph at Newport Rising which I pinched to create the article, oops! Do you have any suggestions for a catchy DYK hook? We may as well nominate it sooner rather than later so not to miss the deadline. Sionk (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Cadw has worked with Newport City Council to try and find a future for it elsewhere in the city; it has now been established that the costs associated with relocation are too great for this to be a viable option". One wonders what those (estimated) costs were, if they have now been made public, and indeed how many estimates were invited to be tendered. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The £600,000 estimate was in the consultants' report, I think. (Shouldn't this be at the article talk page??) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, very probably. "A minimum of £600,000 .." suggests there was more than one estimate and that this was the lowest. But it doesn't actually say that, nor who was asked to tender. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ghm. Wondered if you had seen this. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I hadn't - thanks. But, I do know enough about listed buildings to recognise that local popularity is not one of the criteria, and never has been. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
.. and I think we both know enough about councils to know that's a good excuse, regardless. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's up to Cadw, not the council, but.... yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And here's something else which has just surfaced. The estimated cost for removal in this report? Not £600K, but in fact £250K! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Has that been reported anywhere? I've added it as an external link for the time being. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It's part of the current tsunami from the Save Our Chartist Mural Facebook group. But I imagine there are plenty of quality journalists following this story. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Has that £250K been "made pubic" yet? It wouldn't be the first time... (apols - couldn't resist!) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
oh, darn it!, sob Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Historic or Historical

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for sharing that explanation. My edit was just for consistency, however I'm still not sure which term should be used. Isn't Great Britain an important historical state? Is England an important historical state? I don't see how one is, but the other isn't. Regards, Rob (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

They may be historic (=important), but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that they no longer exist (= historical). Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

File:W P Brookes.jpg missing description details

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

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

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 04:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Record reviews

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you mean that I have to write shorter critical reviews for singles (more stripped down, not just a long text)? I plan on adding critical reception for all Cher's singles (not all singles or albums have critical reviews), but I find it hard because there are like 50 singles remaining and I don't have time to write with more details, I simply copy text. It's especially hard with older songs where sometimes there's a lot text in one section and I can't find a place to put critic reviews and chronology is often useless. It will be a lot easier with her 90's and 00's singles because there are more critical reviews, pages are simply easier to navigate and thanks to easier and full chronology option I simply can edit songs one after another. Cher's singles of 90's and 00's will be more correct, easier to read becuase it's easier for me to add reviews and shorten them to bare words describing elements of songs like vocal performance or beats. I was once thanked because I wrote a section for a Madonna song Beautiful Stranger, should I write my edits like that? I would really like your opinion and hopefully my next edits will be better and easier to understand. Later this day I'll find Cher in a list of cover versions and I'll move and fix the mess I created. Thanks for advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neddp (talk • contribs) 11:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Devonians and Bretons

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

There was no reason for the inclusion of "Devonians" (whatever that is) by User:Jembana so it was reverted. Brough87 (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a random act of kindness on my part to try and accommodate in part your view that Bretons and at least part of the English (people of Devon) are related ethnically. Please have a read of Domnonée and then the Dumnonii language section and then Dumnonia where the Devonians and the Cornish were part of the same tribal confederation that provided settlers to Brittany ( along with the Welsh). You need to get acceptance from the editors on the pages on the English first that they are in fact mainly Brythonic as the most recent and extensive genetic studies indicate and don't still cling to the now discredited Germanist view. What do modern English school textbooks say on the Celticness of the English ?Jembana (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at these latest Welcome Trust genetic maps for Britain to get an idea:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.savecornwall.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SundayTimes17.6.12.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.savecornwall.org/?p%3D235&h=1069&w=1111&sz=297&tbnid=iPKOarFTtxEB2M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=94&zoom=1&usg=__B1pynilyr-rHFWXNWjM-YD72USc=&docid=9sq24Nukw6lZJM&sa=X&ei=WdVbUqPhI8eiige43oDACg&ved=0CDQQ9QEwAw

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/07/map1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-genetic-map-of-britain/&h=554&w=348&sz=53&tbnid=IwONTqHKHP4SeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=57&zoom=1&usg=__ytAXLTk16HHzmxXSqNdTo07RPSo=&docid=2VqkcDAJdTQ5FM&sa=X&ei=WdVbUqPhI8eiige43oDACg&ved=0CDAQ9QEwAQ

and compare them with this map:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/7/72/Britain_802.jpg/250px-Britain_802.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/the-genetic-map-of-britain/&h=354&w=250&sz=35&tbnid=kt6LodNIx6AMlM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=64&zoom=1&usg=__EZErd2-UZad1liK17PZ06oQBn3Y=&docid=2VqkcDAJdTQ5FM&sa=X&ei=WdVbUqPhI8eiige43oDACg&ved=0CDYQ9QEwBA Jembana (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

OY!! If you two want to have a dialogue, please do it on the article talk page, rather than on my talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies - will do.Jembana (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups in Infoboxes

Brough87 is now proposing that the the whole categorisation of ethnic groups in infoboxes should be abandoned and has reverted my reliably sourced edit on this basis. I note that the German people page has a similar infobox where English people are included for instance. You said you would support him in this effort. I am posting this on the Germans talk page so that we can have an inclusive discussion on this because they will be affected by your proposal.Jembana (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Jembana Please see this discussion on: Talk:Breton people Brough87 (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
My view is simply that, as with anything else, the inclusion of "related" ethnic groups should be based on what reliable sources say rather than what editors believe to be true; and also that the definition of "related ethnic groups" in infoboxes needs to be tightened up. If that proves too difficult, I'd have no objection to that parameter being removed. Really, this whole issue should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups - where it has been discussed on previous occasions - rather than being scattered over different talk pages (although, if that WikiProject is as moribund as it seems, discussion might get other editors involved). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYK for Chartist Mural

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hats off. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

 

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Sugar plum fairy came and hit the streets?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

One doesn’t often get to hear “ a certain classic” on BBC Radio 3. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I have an unpeeled banana and a black skull. Saw him at the Rainbow in 1975 1973 - I had been a big fan... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
One can't beat a bit of Grand Slam in the bushes, can one? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ... well maybe you can (at the weekend)

Lou Reed edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wanted to let you know that I resolved the question about the Lou Reed transplant month. I posted this to "John's" TALK page. Thanks for your input.

I found what appears to be a very definitive source as to the month of Reed's liver transplant in the June 11th Cleveland Plain Dealer. Their reporter cited "early May" after having spoken to the clinic after the latter received a release from the family to confirm the procedure. I posted the cite at the Wikipedia article. ABC News repeated the "April" month as recently as yesterday and the NY Times Obit was in error as well. If they haven't changed it, I'll write to the reporter and let him know so it can be changed. Thank you for bringing the Wikipedia "Spring" issue to my attention.

Feel free to erase this note, obviously. Activist (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Another long shot

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am close to completing my best efforts on a new article for Terry Evans. Am I right in thinking he has seen no US R&B chart action ? Also, I can not find a date of birth for him. As far as I can ascertain, he was born Terry Francis Evans in Vicksburg, Mississippi, circa 1943. It is a forlorn hope really.

I do not know if you can access User:Derek R Bullamore/sandbox, but the latest incomplete version is there. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. Just found this - Terry Lee Evans - born August 14, 1937 ??! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah... that explains why I couldn't find him looking under 1943... :-) Living with his parents Philip (labourer) and Lucille Evans, and brothers Philip and Willie Frank, in 1940 in Madison Street, Vicksburg. Possibly the same Terry Lee Evans married Christob(el?) Chavez in 1980 in Los Angeles? No chart action that I can find though... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry about the red herring. I trusted the Discogs source (as it seemed to be the only one I could find). I had never heard of him before I started this quest (actually, I still haven't) but his credits are quite impressive. The personal detail you have unearthed stacks up with other info, so that must be the chap in question. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Newport Always Trumps Others

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How embarrassing. First I revert the Welsh Assembly ip, having failed to to find any source. Then I add a source which no one-one believes! Good old reliable Argus, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! It's just that the Wales Online page is the only one that I can find that mentions Cardiff at all. Maybe they'll just pop by to get some new ideas. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, am sure they will. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC) I found only this: [1] and a helpful straw poll at Huff a few weeks back!

The Signpost: 30 October 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bottom of my talk page

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have no idea as to a possible answer to the question asked of me - even with the prompt. Have you ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, and it doesn't ring any bells with me either. Somewhere in my capacious attic I have at least one original Martin Sharp poster, and the Vanilla Fudge album was the first one I ever bought with my own money. But that doesn't answer the question... sorry! Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Vanilla Sludge eh. I seem to think that Wishbone Ash was my first - bloody long time ago !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sport in England

Thanks for you comments, really appreciate them. I take your point and agree that too much detail is not appropriate for the England page. However, my details ARE limited because I am only adding detail comparable to what is already available to say the football or rugby paragraphs. I have added comparable detail to the Tennis paragraph, added a new one for Formula one, and darts; all of which are mentioned in the introductory sport paragraph. Furthermore, I do not consider myself a feminist but the section on sport in the england page totally ignores women's contribution to sport which is why I added female tennis players, boxers and darts players, all worthy of notary. England has a long sporting heritage for women which is a beacon of equality and respect for other women around the world. Yes I will add as many references as possible. Sorry. Because many of the links already link to wikipedia pages I did not add further reference but you are right I should back up details more. I will also add more detail to the other sport page you suggested. Stufroguk (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2013

The Signpost: 06 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is it just me ?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In the 'good old days', there used to be the option to 'dead' the various messages that appeared at the top of your watchlist. Things like the Esteemed nomination process for December's French Quarrelling Committee About Baguettes is now open for any troll or idiot, and so forth, could be removed from sight before they irritated the hell out of you.

Now I find my watchlist page is more likely full of this rubbish, than what I actually want to watch (which is also rubbish, but at least of my choosing) ! Am I getting old ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. The "dismiss" facility seems to have magically returned. Perhaps someone heard me ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
What I hate is when the page skips down just as I'm clicking on a link. Grrr... Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

how about this one, not english, but photo...

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

how about this one: http://www.360island.com/photo/ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyfengbupt (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Very pretty, but I don't see that it adds any useful encyclopedic content - and, remember that this is the English Wikipedia. You may need to read Wikipedia:External links, and if you want to discuss this further it's best to do it here, not on my own talk page. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Original Barnstar
Excellent work that you've done on Ray Gosling - well done! Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...) 10:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! - although it certainly wasn't just me, and the article could still do with a lot of work. I remember enjoying some of his TV work, a few decades ago now. But, it's a great shame that articles like that only get worked on after the person's died, and when the obituaries come out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

I am sorry for my vandalism. It was a joke for my friends. Here have a kitten!

Mrthadawee1 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Entries at Briton

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I re-removed a number of entries at Briton as per WP:DAB and WP:NOR, as no provided sources describes them as Briton or Britons, and it isn't even stated at the articles in question. If you believe they are described by the term, I'd appreciate a source; at either the articles in question, or on the term's talk page. Regards, Rob (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Culm grassland

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Yes, you are right. area of purple moor grass and rush pasture + Devon /= Culm Grassland. Pity - the article could do with some more images. I have removed --NHSavage (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The photo looks fine, but do we know if counts as Culm Grassland? I am not an expert on that sort of thing.--NHSavage (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that.--NHSavage (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Deaths in 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Saw your revert. I know about the redlink rule but wasn't clear in my edit explanation. Redlink + the info in the obit made me think not notable at all. As in, any article on him wouldn't pass notability. You're welcome to disagree with me and I'll keep the link there, just wanted to let you know my reasoning. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you need to go through proper processes and not make unilateral decisions. If no article is created within a month, it will be removed from the list. If an article is created and you feel that the subject is not notable, propose it for deletion and it will be discussed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

Snow Dropping - not the act of a serious editor. Possible sock of [[2]] Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I know. Apparently it's a real term, but his idea of referencing is to add some unrelated sources and hope for the best. Probably just a kid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
He tells me he's a bit of a "rascist". Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, "rasclat" - a bad person - [3]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, my bad, so clearly a troll? Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that we're dealing with a kid who has just discovered WP, is trying it out, and, in time, might start making useful contributions. Edits like this don't suggest he's a troll - rather, someone who is starting out and doesn't yet know the ropes. I'd be inclined to cut him a bit of slack and nudge him along. But, I could be wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Snow Dropping seemed a well thought out article which was clearly trolling. He spent some time on that. If it weren't for that article I might be happier. Dougweller (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's what I would call trolling. As I mentioned, the phenomenon exists. The article (as I remember it) was badly written, off the top of his head, and the supposed sources were added on as an afterthought. But, we all had to start somewhere! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

He called it " the oldest known criminal enterprise in existence". He said ",it became highly lucrative during times of treated animal skin trade" "an item of clothing hanging off your line can greatly increase or decrease in value overnight due to the current ideological habit patterns of the human race" "As current paradigm trends continue to place high value on restructured matter the Snow dropping business is likely to remain a secure enterprise until the awakening of man". He was having fun with us. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed... as kids do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Rex Garvin bio

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi -- I'm new to posting anything on Wikipedia. Sorry if I violated policy in posting a date of death for Rex Garvin. Appreciate your patience. My friend Rex Garvin died Dec. 2, 2013 in Atlanta, GA. His funeral service was held today at Meadows Mortuary on Flat Shoals Road in Atlanta. <contact details removed>. I haven't seen any obit information posted anywhere. Best, Don Schanche Atlanta, GA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donschanche (talk • contribs) 21:11, 10 December 2013‎

I've copied this to Talk:Rex Garvin and responded there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Info' box: as discussed earlier ...

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you for the "thanks"! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

...sssshhhh..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there,

I'm just wondering how long the discussion process usually takes. This is for the Culture of the United Kingdom issue. Thanks!

James Burnett22 (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor sources

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

re: '(Undid revision 579645343 by Kind Tennis Fan (talk). Poor source. Take it up at WP:RS/N if you disagree.) (undo)'

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

Do please elucidate how you came to the conclusion that the Express, the Mirror and Exaro are a 'poor source' and not regarded as reliable for WP purposes, whatever that is supposed to mean.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/437954/Police-gunman-told-me-to-ignore-paedophiles-says-ex-child-protection-officer

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/two-arrested-in-paedophile-probe-linked-to-politicians-8483344.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/elm-guest-house-boy-brothel-1713966 Codeusirae (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here Ghrmyrtle. I have re-reverted since Codeusirae reverted your revert of Kind Tennis Fan's addition of the piece about claims by Chris Fay. Of the above three cites, the Mirror and Standard ones do not mention Chris Fay and are thus not relevant. The Express is the only news source I can find that mentions Fay's assertions, and in my view is not a reputable source on its own, per WP:REDFLAG. My view is that we should not give this currency in WP unless it has appeared in, say, BBC or Telegraph. -- Alarics (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Alarics.
Note to Codeusirae: Before you consider making further edits, I suggest you read up on which sources are appropriate for an encyclopedia, and which are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jonathan King

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vandals come in strange shapes! Someone should revert the article to the previous shape it was in. Don't have time or inclination myself.Cliffwise (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

From Gamera1123

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, thank you for always reviewing my writings and I appreciate your actions.

However, as I re-edited on Irish Sea article, I personally don't see any reasons for my sentense to be deleted. Is that your style to keep deleting sections if "you" feel not necessary? And what if others do?

If you have questions, why don't you post it on Talk page before deleting?

I didn't feel upset about your word "poorly worded" until today and I now feel highly insulted. IT IS TRUE that my words were poorly skilled. I don't want to make excuses, but I am a Japanese student studying English as my second language.

And I admit that I didn't add any references because I was using a mobile phone and it was difficult for me to add reference with it, and that was my own fault thus there was nothing wrong to be deleted.

However, as I said above I am very upset with your action saying "poorly worded" because you actually did not need to point it out: you could just delete my section and that's it. I know I am not the rightful one to claim, but if you are unsatisfied with poor grammer, you can fix it.

I was apprecitating your action until today, but I temporary lost my patience.

If you would have made the same actions for claiming the simillar reasons(poorly worded, not needed, etc.) next time, I will directly claim your actions to Wikipedia.Inc.

Sincerely

Gamera1123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1123 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It is clear that you have much to learn about how Wikipedia articles are produced. It is absolutely normal for one editor to remove another editor's contributions if they do not meet Wikipedia guidelines and policies. No editor should be "upset" by any such changes, so long as they are justified, and there is no requirement for every edit to be justified on the talk page. If edits are poorly worded, they will be improved or removed, irrespective of the first language of the editor concerned. In the case of the Irish Sea article, you are inserting wording that makes no sense. Your wording says "However the plan has not been conducted so far in 2013 as it was claimed to be logically and ethically feasible"; that means the opposite of what you mean - the wording you should have inserted is ""However, as at 2013, the plan has not been implemented, although it had been claimed to be logically and ethically feasible." The next question is whether any such wording should be included in the article at all; my view is that it should not, because there is no evidence that an unimplemented proposal made 8 years ago is of sufficient notability to be included in the article. I'd be prepared to compromise on that point, but it should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. Finally, please learn to sign your posts on talk pages with four of these symbols: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


I apologize for my violence. I appreciate your advices and I did review my claims. Indeed, I was obviously inexperienced and I didn't notice those points you pointed. The thing is that I cannot recognize and distinguish about that my adding about Gray Whales doesn't meet Wikipedia's needs. I just thought as long as expanding page would help readers' interests and knowledge, then it will serve as Wikipedia's motto. Again, I am sorry for my childish behavior, and I won't mind if you delete the part I added.

Sincerely

Gamera1123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamera1123 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

It's Psychedelic Baby

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I went looking for evidence that this webzine is a reliable, authoritative source and I could find none. It might seem obvious that the interviews are real, but that's not good enough for Wikipedia. I wanted to use an article of theirs too, but I was concerned that since it was Blogspot it might not be usable. At WP:RSN, I asked about it and they said if the owner of that webzine had been considered an authoritative source on psychedelic music elsewhere, in reliable third-party sources, the webzine itself would be usable as a source. Unable to locate any such evidence, I concluded it was not. I do not wish to break 3RR, so for the time being I will let your changes stand. If in a while no evidence has emerged to suggest IPB is a reliable weblog, I will remove the sources again. LazyBastardGuy 00:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

TRPOD's reply to you said that "if the editor of that blog has been previously published in standard book form or regular articles in a music magazine on the subject of X type of music, then as a recognized expert, their blog posts about X type of music can generally be considered a reliable source." But the cases where I reverted you did not relate to comments made by the blogger - they concerned information given out in interviews by musicians, and then reported by the blogger. So, TRPOD's answer is not relevant. There is no reason to think that the blogger reported those sources inaccurately. In my view, different criteria apply when we are considering interview material. In any case, if you are concerned about the source, but the information given is not in any way contentious or detrimental, it would be better to keep in the existing reference and add a [better source needed] template, or [self-published source?], rather than simply replacing the source with a [citation needed] tag. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, what's more important is that there is no reason to think that the blogger did report those sources accurately either. The absence of one thing does not imply by default the presence of its opposite. I saw it more prudent to remove the sources from the few articles that did use them - and that there were only five says to me that the Wikipedia community at large generally does not trust the source anyway despite the abundance of articles on the site - because I went looking and saw no evidence whatsoever that the source was to be trusted. In particular, the article I had wanted to use had information I couldn't find elsewhere, but I am unable to use it now because the source isn't acceptable. What proof do we have that the interviews were really given by the musicians themselves? If they perhaps linked to it from Facebook and said, "Hey, we just gave an interview here, come check it out!" thus verifying that it was they who gave the interview, that I suppose would be okay, but in the meantime I haven't yet found anything of the kind. In short, there's no reason to suggest the interviews are genuine without some sort of verification. In my view, anyone can start a blog, anyone can post pictures to it, anyone can pose as anyone else if they do the research. Until I see better proof of its reliability, I will not accept the blog as being a reliable source. Again, though, I'll let your changes stand as I am moving on to other things. LazyBastardGuy 16:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 December 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Irish people

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

We seem to have missed this:[4] - man, man, man, not trying to hide himself. Not sure I have time right now for the SPI. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually only the latest, and I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Redbranch1984. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ghmyrtle/Archive_23&oldid=1168301399"