This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ghmyrtle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, could you please help me keep an eye on the disam page JLS? JLS fans seem to be ignoring the fact that JLS already have an article here and keep changing the disam page into another JLS article. Cheers! John Sloan'sIPavoider (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
On January 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hewelsfield, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
OK, thanks for the links anyway. I think Procul Harum have the same borderline status as Fairport because the former tend to be regarded as a progressive rock outfit. Nevertheless, even if "Whiter Shade of Pale" had been the only psychedelic song they ever did, I think they should be included. Pob Hwyl, Tim flatus (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Roman - British
You beat me to that rv by 5 seconds! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 January 2009
Thanks for uploading Image:Arthurh pianosolo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Cyrusfaryar.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Cyrusfaryar.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Deniselasalle.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Deniselasalle.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dissidenten.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Dissidenten.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Judyhenske.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Judyhenske.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Lojo1.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Lojo1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mikeheron.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Mikeheron.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mfq.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Mfq.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:ShemekiaCopeland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:60s53-1-.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:60s53-1-.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Vipers.jpg)
⚠
Thanks for uploading Image:Vipers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Thanks, you just beat me to placing the second 3RR note (ArmchairVexillologist...). At the moment I can't even understand what the whole dispute is about...I think I need to re-read the post carefully...I'm rather muddled at the mo. Best both keep our eyes out for further reverts, --Cameron*21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing the IP accounts are the same person, who's holding a grudge against Armchair's opinon on unregistered editors. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Yeah, I'd call it rock and roll. The Crudup version of That's All Right Mama isn't actually too different from the Presley version, and few people have disputed that the Presley version is rock and roll. Zazaban (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd actually agree with all those people as well. Zazaban (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind (!)
I agree with your additions, but I hope you don't mind these tweaks - it flows better to me, and I'm very conscious of the lead sprawling. I think the points are still pretty much intact. --Jza84 | Talk 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Good work on the rephrasing! It's ridiculous that people are letting their opinions get in the way of writing a good article. Though Burke's cover is by no means of much, if any, musical significance, it still sold over a million copies and created so much publicity that it actually brought Buckley's to #2 and even Cohen's to around #30ish! Frankly, as much as it pains me, this needs to be mentioned in the lead. And this is coming from one of the guys who helped Jeff Buckley get to Good Article status!
The most confusing aspect for me is why people seem so keen to put importance on Wainwright's cover, IMO it crossed the Cale and Buckley versions and resulted in something that stands up to neither. To paraphrase Obelix: These musical purists are crazy! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, as Adrian22 does rightly say on the talk page, it's not easy to get the "right" balance when there are very different perceptions in different parts of the world. Alexandra Burke's success in the UK is totally irrelevant to the US and the rest of the world, for example, and the Wainwright version is important, because Shrek and its soundtrack album were important in making people aware of the song, and it was his version used on the album. I think the UK perception does need to be reflected in the lead, but in balance with other perceptions, and without making the introduction too complicated and unwieldy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, but then the Shrek soundtrack version should be mentioned in the lead too if it's so important. I thought that the O.C. finale was the thing that catapulted it into the US mind but as a UK user I may be wrong. I'm fully aware that those in the US don't like it when weight is given to something that they have never heard of before and see is of no importance. Sadly, the rest of the world has tolerated many US specific things for a long time.
In this specific case, the qualifying "in the UK" is redundant as, worldwide, these are still the best selling versions. I'll let it go though, as the statement is still true in UK terms and I know US users will not like this confrontation with things that happened in other countries which have little relevance to them. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Thanks for your message about the Reparata and the Delrons page. I have no independent or primary knowledge about the group, and everything is taken from other existing online or print sources! I thought I had added sources and references very well, but if you would like to flag anything you feel is unsourced, I will either source it or remove it. Sah10406 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
On 6 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gail Trimble, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Hi, Thanks for your message. I'm happy that Bristol (greater or otherwise) is part of the west of England. But I can't believe "Greater Bristol" is equated by anyone to the "West of England" ie that Greater Bristol includes Devon, Cornwall etc - which is what is implied in the sentence "The term "Greater Bristol", used for example by the Government Office of the South West,[1] is most usually used to refer to the area covered by the city and its three neighbouring local authorities, although this wider area is also sometimes known as the "former Avon area" or the "West of England".".— Rodtalk10:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I personaly always define myself as Scottish and have never described myself as British. When abroad I always hear English people describe themselves as just that, English. I'm Scottish, my heritage is Scottish going back hundreds of years at least, so calling myself Scottish has far more meaning for me than British and I believe the vast majority of people in the countries of the UK think the same way. You may call yourself British first, I do believe you are in the minority. Tumblin Tom (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Thanks. I found a couple of good Marion Harris pix on the Library of Congress site and added them to Commons. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Summary: Wikimedia UK has held it's first AGM! The AGM included numerous speakers talking about a wide range of topics, ranging from collaboration with the BBC to reaching out around the world with Wikipedia on a DVD! A number of official actions were also taken - including the passing of six Resolutions, the election of the new seven-person Board, and the first new Board meeting! Also this month, an overview of the Chapters meeting in Berlin, of which two of our number were present, and details of the upcoming meetups this month!
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skenmy (talk • contribs) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Guidance on naming conventions
Hi Ghmyrtle, as a geographer I thought you might be able to advise on this. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but is there any agreement within WikiProject Wales as to the naming conventions on articles about places, landscape features and structures? I know that the general naming conventions for Wales are place, principal area but what is the approach to principal areas themselves? Should they be described by reference to their region, as per this recent edit[1] or simply by reference to Wales as a whole? I see different editors adopting different approaches,e.g. (here and here) and think we should standardise if possible. Thanks. Pondle (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aware that there has ever been a clear consensus within WP Wales. I think that participants at WP:UKGEO would tend to argue that the lead should only refer to Wales, as the second-tier division of the UK, though personally I don't necessarily agree with all of that group's views. However, the problem with using terms like South Wales, West Wales, Mid Wales, North Wales, etc., is that those areas (unlike the regional boundaries within England) do not have clear and unambiguous boundaries. Is Llanelli, say, in South Wales, West Wales, or both? My personal preferences - and that's all they are - would be for each settlement to have a location map, so that readers can see where it is; and for any references to sub-regions within Wales to use lower case titles (eg "south Wales") to avoid any suggestion that there is an unambiguously officially defined area called "South Wales". But I think the question could usefully be raised at WT:WALES. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm very unhappy with leaning over backwards to accommodate a political agenda from an avowedly unionist editor. The essence if not a debate about if Cornwall is celtic or not, but about the use of the term "Celtic Nation". Your earlier edit was sensible and clarified matters. Linking the term solely to the Celtic League is misleading. It may not belong in the lede, it may need qualification, but the term is in wider use. --Snowded (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an argument into who does or doesn't have a "political agenda", given some editors' userboxes... I fully accept the term is in wider use than those two bodies, but I've got a difficulty in identifying whether any of those who use the term don't have a political agenda of their own. I'm happy to compromise, and I think we're getting there. Intemperate comments by editors on either side don't help, and it would be helpful to hear from editors who actually live in Cornwall. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think some of the intemperate comments are born out of frustration here, lets see where we go. I think the key thing (to avoid the political agendas) is to focus on the term "Celtic Nations". --Snowded (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
You both realize that what you're doing is trolling? I'm sure you both wish to be rid of me. Fine, keep your bipolar entrenchment ongoing for as long as you can deceive the rest of Wikipedia, that you intend to resolve the problem. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You undid, without any explanation, the correction I made to the entry for Louisa Shepherd. Why? As I explained on the talk page, she was born, and still lives, in Monmouthshire, which at the time of her birth was legally part of England, and which is now within Wales. She lives in the same place she was born, and it appears to be consistent with other entries in such circumstances - for example, Rosa Rein - for this to be recognised in the schedule itself. Could you please explain your actions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Your original edit did not explain, either, why you made the changes you did. It was very possible that you could have mistaken the place of birth for the place of residence.Ryoung12220:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Empire strikes backwards
I think we are about there - I've been through everything I can find (waiting on a few more but I think they will be the same)
I plan to summarise in the morning based on the two options with some bullet point arguments, May be a simple poll to see where we are and invote others to contribute on one of the notice boards? Any advice/thoughts? I've been sorely tempted with an ANI report with some of the comments and attacks but will hold that. --SnowdedTALK20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
RE-Is Wales a Country, etc etc
As far as i can see, these sort of discussions have no useful direction. That is why I "Closed" them (I did not remove them). If people bring up old resolved discussions on the Talk: Barack Obama page they are quickly closed. I don't see any difference between them.--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you withdraw your support for the moment, until the page is reopened.. It might start some unnecessary side dispute. There will be plenty of opportunity to voice support, as I myself intend to do. Best wishes. RashersTierney (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI I chatted with the ArbCom member last night who looked after the Ayn Rand case and he has encouraged me to proceed so I will do that shortly. Appreciate the support. --SnowdedTALK10:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No it wasn't deliberate and I'm at a loss as to how it happened. I pasted my post onto the page and left. I've sorted it now but will try and get this resolved so it doesn't happen again. Many thanks for telling me about it. --Bill Reid | (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a heavily scripted monobook.js file and they are suggesting that if I reduce some of these or even some of my prefs, then that might cure this problem. So I'll do that and see what happens. Bill Reid | (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I've found out what has happened. I had wikiED enabled through my prefs and also have it installed through a Firefox add-in creating some sort of conflict. Removed it from prefs and hopefully that's it now. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ghmyrtle/Archive 5! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Hagley RC High School. --Kudpung (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I understand, and one comment will be enough to invite you to continue to enhance an article you once worked on, and that thanks to your involvement, more progress is being made. You can be sure that the task I have before me is exceptionally tedious, and one of the lesser pleasure of contributing to the WP. If there is a better way of streamlining this task that I may not be aware of, please let me know. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, I've replaced the stub with an article, which might be of interest due to the etymology suggested in Ergyng and Archenfield. The article doesn't support those etymologies, but I might have missed some relevant information in my research. Improvement and comments welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, The comments below would be extraneous to the article, so I've omitted them there. Any response that you might have is of interest, but not necessarily expected. We seem to have tied things off nicely. Also I apologize in advance, as I seem to be in "wordy mode" today:
I must care about this because I seem to be beating it into the ground — on the preference for "newer" sources, see the "Modern Impact" section in the forgery called De Situ Britanniae for the origin of a rather famous modern name. And see the "Moving Trimontium across Scotland" section of the Novantae article for the ultimate origin of the deservedly respected Barry Cunliffe's map of North Britain in his Iron Age Communities in Britain (the famous William Roy of Ordnance Survey fame invented a few things while trying to follow the fictitous itineraries given in the above-mentioned De Situ Britanniae, which he thought was genuine). Indeed, I have also tracked down modern assertions and hypotheses only to find that they originate with the Iolo Manuscripts (not directly; the author uncritically used the work of someone who thought them genuine). Newer and authoritative sources have the same defects as older authoritative sources. They do not have primacy because they are newer, though there are many who give it to them.
I'll fit your citations into the appropriate style (your google search resulted in a commercial preview and the viewable pages vary over time, so I'm using the citation without a link). If you're so inclined, see Wikipedia:Citation templates (I prefer the everywhere-usable generic "Citation", and keep a blank copy handy). In-line citations can be done with this, but I think Template:Harvard citation is usually better for that purpose. It's a bit tedious and certainly not fun, but it makes the ref's more usable for those who follow. That's my own view for myself, not to imply that others should adopt it.
Not sure why you had difficulty checking the sources ... you can get directly to any of them by clicking on the link, they are available at any time by anyone, and one proceeds from there straightforwardly. For in-line citations, the appropriate section has the specific page number. And note that the bibliography is the list of references used, not to imply that every reference is applicable to the article in toto (eg, references to recent excavation address recent excavation). If this still a problem or a misunderstanding, just ask and we'll get it resolved.
No need to copy passages from the policies (if needed, a wikilink can be inserted im passim, eg, "see Verifiability"). And if mentioned, the policies should be taken as a whole to support a viewpoint (eg, include Reliability and the rest), not parsed (one might parse scripture to cite "an eye for an eye" or "thou shalt not kill", depending on which side of the issue one takes).
Again, the article is a better one for your efforts; looking forward to future improvements there and elsewhere through collaboration. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Saxon's birth date and other info
Hi, Ghmyrtle. I see you've tried to clarify the multitude of Sky Saxon's dubious birth dates, but I am afraid it will only add to the confusion. Because of the BLP issues, I recommend we remove any unsourced claims in the article, including the birth date, until good references are provided. I've left a note to that effect on the talk page and would appreciate any thoughts you might have. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
User 62.16.140.28 appears to be trying to re-fashion the above article to his / her own opinions. I have pasted a vandal level 1 warning on him / her, but seemingly to no avail. Could you have a look at recent edits, and see what you think. I do not want to get involved in an edit war. Despite you being described as a "dozy twat", I think you might bring some sanity to bear ! Plus the subject matter is Welsh - albeit from the 'wrong end' of the principality compared to you. In addition, no-one has ever called me a dozy twat and I feel somewhat left out. I am still wearing sackcloth and ashes over The Seeds, so feel rather vulnerable. Thanks and best wishes,
Exactly my reaction. Personally I would be tempted to dump everything but the bit on late 50s early 60 rock and roll, as it is all covered somewhere else. I have a lot on at the moment, so I will have to get back to it in a bit (when I am feeling strong). Thanks--Sabrebd (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the additions and corrections to British rock and roll; very useful, especially the radio bit which I didn't have anything on and yeah, I agree it was an "attempt" because it was pretty bad. As you may guess this is part of a cunning long term plan towards improving the delightful British rock article, when I feel brave. Feel free to get there before me.--Sabrebd (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.
Dumnonian edits 24.06.09
I have spent the whole evening put references to the King List on the page. The main source in English is http://www.britannia.com/
However I have checked the latter's sources for the period in question and principally we have all the texts and traditional sources we would expect, for example. Academics are always going to contradict each other. I have the sources for the source if you like and I haven't found anything "untoward".
E.g.
The problem with sourcing here is that many of these manuscripts are in Old Welsh or Latin. Such as the following, some of whose names are pertinent to this article. When dealing with this period of history in Britain we have to accept the difficulty in sorting legend from fact or when legend and fact awkwardly ovrlap! For this reason I have avoided Arthurian references, other than one speculative link to Uther Pendragon in which it is also stated that this is a legendary link.
Well, that is about all I can do for one evening. I am working on bringing as many differing sources as possible, as soon as possible- So please do not delete any more links. All this informaation, as well as the links and sources are to be found on my talk page.
Brythonek (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Dumnonian Edits 25.06.09=
Hello Ghmyrtle.
I have had a careful look at the debate you pointed out on the Taskforce page and have come to the following conclusions.
The initial comment by the user is a complete over-reaction and fails to take account of a few points.
The user attacks John Morris for example. John Morris' theories caused "outrage" in the academic world because it appears he seemed to put 1 and 1 together and come up with three. Nevertheless Morris was a well-respected academic and his source materials were not in error. He did not invent names, places or archaeological finds. The problem, if you like, was not with John Morris' facts as such, but rather with the theories he built on those facts. I think we need to make a distinction between what is "reference", i.e. names, dates, battles, and what might be seen as "hypothesising" or "theorising", which I agreee, wikipedia is not about.
Any discussion of sub-Roman Britain is difficult in view of the source material. Take the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for example
A.D. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery, dragons flying across the firmament. These tremendous tokens were soon followed by a great famine: and not long after, on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter. Siga died on the eighth day before the calends of March.
Does this mean that we can no longer use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a source? Does it mean that the following year's reference to Pope Adrian is de facto dubious? Do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? No, it means we must be careful how we word things, we must point out what the sources are and what the pros and cons of these sources be and NOT get involved in theorising. As for Nash's hypotheses, well they are up to Nash but surely anyone with a modicum of intelligence appreciates the difference between a hypothesis and an accepted theory and as long as the wording in the articles reflects such in all cases I don't think we have a problem.
It's the difference between saying "This is the period attributed by Medieaval Sources to the reign of King Arthur" and "In this period King Arthur reigned"--if you follow me.
Thanks for the message. I see your point. I think the problem is one of balance. People look at the EBK site, which is Nash's theory and then copy and paste away without checking up what the background sources are. I did not use the EBK site, but went to Britannia.com, also connected to Nash but where it states the sources, verifiable and what is considered legendary, pseudo-history, etc. Anyway, I have been working on the article again this afternoon and have included a small paragraph with blue links (gratefully) that discusses the sources briefly. Have a look and see what you feel. You could do me a favour in this, you say you don't know much about this area? Good! Read that article (relevant) sections and then tell me if you think it is misleading or perhaps convinces a reader that this is concrete historical fact- if you come back to me on this one it would be great! I mean, I don't want to sound arrogant, but I know enough about this subject to know that Geoffrey of Monmouth is a quoted source, but to be used with a huge pinch of salt and a greater deal of caution!!! Perhaps, someone with no knowledge might not pick up on this!!!!
As fot the Roman period history and the archaelogical material, I have added some more stuff with links from Romanbritain.org and Ptolemy!
Brythonek (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to help if I can, but I've got limited time and I'll be away next week - I'll see what I can do. Thanks for taking on my concerns. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks- take your time. I see what you mean about an article merge. Perhaps we could scale down the Dumnonii page to more archaelogical stuff and move the sub-Roman stuff to the Kingdom page? Good idea Batman! :) Brythonek (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested a merger or two there in the past, but it hasn't gone down too well. You could check the past discussions, and/or try again if you like. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Please allow the recent edition on the Argentina section of the Anglophobia article to stay.
My contribution was technical by adding more references form other Wikipedia articles on this issue eg:Re-establishment of British rule on the Falklands (1833) and sovereignty claim by Argentina etc.. and in them sources for confirmation from the web. Please allow it stay, as I did not add any personal and political comments on this subject.
P.S.: I think Argentina should be added to the Anti-British sentiment page. It is more relevant there, as this article is confined to a nation/nationality.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.29.168 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 25 June 2009
I see what you mean about the Giles Coren article. He is well known for his abrasive style and I seem to read somewhere that he enjoyed being rude. Nevertheless the article is offensive whether it is parody or not. Just like Bernard Manning was considered by many to offensive and racist and yet he said he was only joking. Remember the Anne Robinson controversy involving the Welsh, that was "humour" too wasn't it? Remember when Ian Botham's team got up and walked out of a reception in Australia when they found the impersonator of the Queen to be offensive? The Australians said it was only a joke and the poms got bashed for having no sense of humour. The Mohammed cartoons in the Danish newspaper were only a joke...weren't they? Whatever the interpretation of the presumed intentions of the creators of such articles/comments etc the fact remains that they are considered by many to be offensive. In the case of the Coren article to Cornish people amongst others. Nevertheless, I will reword the Coren quote to include the fact that it was a parody. I also think that people can be clever enough to say what they really think and get away with it under the guise of humour, many a true word was said in jest- however that is my own opinion and obviously not part of the scope of Wikipedia.
Brythonek (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. In my view, you should add words like: "Although Coren was apparently intending to be ironic in his use of language, his words have been taken as evidence of anti-Cornish racism." By the by, I would have put your comment above on the article talk page itself, perhaps rather than here, esp. if you're intending to change the article yourself - others may have a view on your comments, and probably wouldn't have my talk page on their watchlist. Just a handy tip! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
new user article changes
Hello Ghmyrtle, just wanted to point out that the person who changed the Sub-Roman Britain article and commented on the talk page is a brand new username whose only article contribution is that change. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I would love your input at User:Jza84/Sandbox5. I trust your editorship entirely so would welcome you to edit this and insert some references if you're still avaliable between the wikibreak. --Jza84 | Talk 22:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you back Ghmyrtle,
Just a nudge (and something of a plea!), that although I think I've made progress, I'm stuggling to bring User:Jza84/Sandbox5 to full maturity. There are some small but important matters of fact I'm finding difficult to write up and toiling with it for a fortnight has sent me under a little!
Thanks for answering the cry for help. I should've looked at the revision history myself; in any case, thanks for putting it back in order. Ulmanor (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ghmyrtle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
— 16 March 2009
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
