User talk:Ghmyrtle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 31 December 2014[edit]

Hope I didn't tread on an article you planned to write...[edit]

Since you popped up on Walter de Clare so quickly... thanks for the tweaks. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all - I'm glad you started it. I have a good selection of books on the history of the Chepstow and Tintern areas, including the castle and abbey, so will see if I can find anything to add. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I just ordered Anglo-Norman Studies 11 and requested the book on the Clares by Altschul through ILL... so hopefully that will help too. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Genesis[edit]

Looking at the 34 "BBC King on Genesis" articles, most of them mention that he continues to assert his innocence of the convictions which was why I felt the detail should be reverted back into the article. Sorry if I called it vandalism. I meant it was a widely known fact that ought to be retained.Xegit (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Another apology. This refers to the King article not the Genesis one.Xegit (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2015[edit]

FitzOsbern[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to question the revert you made to Chepstow, regarding {f,F}itzOsbern. I've no particular preference as to which one is used, but I do think that we should be consistent across wikipedia. Do you not think we should use the same spelling on Chepstow as that used at William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford (whichever variation that might be)? --David Edgar (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I commented on this some time ago at Talk:William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford#Name, and probably don't want to add very much - except to say that we should be guided by what sources say. Without checking them all, I'm more used to using the lower case 'f' - though, now that you've pointed out the inconsistency, I'll be happy to revert myself. This source says 'Fitz-Osbern', this says 'Fitz Osbern', and this says 'fitz Osbern'.. for what they are worth! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I would go with fitz Osbern, with both lower case and space (Incidentally, this is what Cadw use at Chepstow Castle). It's pretty obvious that this was the original form and the simplifications and standardisations of later years are no more than that. We should record subtleties.
I have little enthusiasm for the "everything must be consistent" viewpoint, as it usually ends up as "Everything will be made consistent with the first article I happened across", with a distinct lack of research beforehand. This is particularly the case for WP, where the idea that one consistent format is applicable to everything, no matter its origin, is ludicrous. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I too am used to seeing "fitzOsbern" or "fitz Osbern" and have fought a rearguard action against "Fitzosbern" (and the like) for much of my time on Wikipedia.... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2015[edit]

Aust Ferry[edit]

I was vaguely looking at doing some spring cleaning and improvements on this article, but since I last looked at it, an IP has put a lot of unsourced content on it. I don't want to hit the "rv - unsourced" blunderbuss as I don't believe it's all false, but it'll need a bit of copyediting and retro-sourcing for the article's quality to stay stable. Any ideas on how to proceed? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes... I'd missed all that. There is a lot of information here, here and here which I'm sure will be useful. I know the person who runs the restoration group (in fact, I bought my house from him), if it turns out to be of any use. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Gosh. I went to see the old ferry terminals at Aust and Beachley about five years ago - standing next to the pub at the latter hearing the expansion joints over the Severn Bridge above is incredible. I was vaguely aware of the restoration job, which is why I wanted to spruce up the article a bit. I'll see what I can do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2015[edit]

Casual (subculture) ‎[edit]

Hi, Thank you for the message and my apologies for the 'citation needed' error. I'm quite new to wikipedia and yet to fully find my way around. Unfortunately there was no 'citation needed' template obviously available and i was unable to find its location so again my apologies for that.. Yes, i agree that the article needs tidying up. This is why there's a need for citations over the full article. For instance i feel to the casual reader this reads (actually states) that this trend evolved from something started in London when in actual fact the two referenced precursors state that it actually began in Liverpool and Manchester. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt by leaving the implication that it may well of started in London along side Liverpool and Manchester with my add on about it starting elsewhere 'as well as in Liverpool' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"...may well have....", you mean, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't mean 'i think'. I mean i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt over an unreferenced, therefore unsubstantiated claim that clearly miss-leads the casual reader. As we both agree, the whole article needs cleaning up. If you want a clear and honest picture and you want your claims to stay, then give them the citation the obviously need. Just as others have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 07:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"...misleads..." The point I was making is simply that your suggested wording makes no logical sense. I agree that the whole article needs more and better sources, but I'm not planning to rewrite it myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the article makes no sense now simply because of the unreferenced, unsubstantiated first paragraph that for some unknown reason you also choose to repeat at the end. These two unsubstantiated entries clearly miss-lead the casual reader as well as messing up the whole structure. It seems to me, (and correct me if i'm wrong)but there are two separate aspects to this. (The pre-designer aspect and the start of designer aspect if you like). Now the designer aspect starting in Liverpool is well documented, but the pre one it seems, is cited as starting in Liverpool, cited as starting in Manchester and claimed as starting in London by yourself. For the sake of harmony the whole section could be written up as the three cities contesting the precursor to what Liverpool fans turned into continental label culture. The only thing with writing it up that way would be the Liverpool and Manchester claim being referenced and thr London claim remaining unsubstantiated. For the sake of accuracy ,you need a citation really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 09:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pursuing this. I'm not particularly interested in the subject matter, and I don't have any sources about it. Other people will, in due course, and they should rewrite the whole article based on what those reliable sources say, not on what you, I, or anyone else believe to be true. The tag at the top of the article makes clear that the whole article needs to be rewritten. The only reason I became involved was to point out that the wording you prefer makes no logical sense, and to add that you are not that great at spelling - which is a disadvantage when it comes to writing an encyclopedia. Please also try to learn to sign your posts by using four of these symbols: ~ ... at the end. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My spelling is just fine, may friend. Especially when i'm writing an article for public consumption and not merely scribbling it down whilst attempting to tactfully make a valid point with you. There are references out there to back-up your claims if what you say is true. For instance, i could make Nicky Allt's assertion equally grandiose and back it all up with at least another five reliable sources in thirty minutes flat. So i'll take your lack of sources and now seemingly lack of interest as a sign that you wouldn't mind me scrapping the first and last unsubstantiated paragraphs, then....Richie bedfellows (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you are prepared to rewrite the article based on what reliable sources say, that's excellent news. If you simply scrap the existing text and rewrite it based on what you personally believe, your edits will be reverted, by myself or other editors. That's the way the system works here, and my advice would be that you read some of the guidance on how editing here should be done before you launch yourself into work which may be removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well as far as citing information with a reliable source is concerned, I know exactly how it works. That's the precise reason why I've asked you to cite yours whilst safe in the knowledge all mine are reliably referenced. The fact is you can't, can you? Now bearing all this in mind, your failure to do so would obviously suggest if anyone is writing "what you personally believe", then it would clearly be you....Therefore by extension, myself and others would be well within their rights to scrap what you say (twice), then leave it as it reads until someone sees fit to re-write it with more appropriate citations to add to the citations already given. Personally i would never leave anything on a page that i was unable to reference if someone clearly requested i do so, but then that's just me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 12:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you'll find that I haven't contributed any wording to that article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but I bet you've thought about it, haven't you! And Wikipedia now requires appropriate citations for article-related thoughts! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So why bother arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info? You argue against your own point when you state 'you and others have the right to revert something that isn't clearly substantiated with an appropriate reference'. You're basically arguing with someone who has clearly referenced all of his contributions about your right to revert appropriately referenced contributions, on behalf of someone who hasn't even referenced his own...Richie bedfellows (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "arguing a point about someone else not bothering to cite some dubious info". I was removing words which you added that made no sense. You've now come up with a better wording. Thank you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They made sense right from the start. As i say, the confusion stems from the contribution written by whoever it is you fail to address about the need for an appropriate citation whilst arguing your right to revert such contributions with me. I'm glad you now find the wording acceptable. Perhaps you would be good enough to pass on your revised thoughts to the other username, or the one you have just left me a message on behalf of, under your 'Ghmyrtle' unsername... to be more precise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your wording said, in effect, that something else happened before something that happened at the same time. It didn't make any sense at all. And, you ought to be aware that accusing two editors of being the same person is accusing them of sockpuppetry - which is a serious allegation. You might like to withdraw it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I know exactly what sock puppetry is. And bearing in mind the strange 'coincidence' of two contributors seemingly making the exact same irrelevant, nonsensical argument about something that made perfect sense, together with yourself just 'coincidentally' responding under this username within moments of me responding in the the second username's talk page...I stand by what i said, so do your worst. The original unsubstantiated edit was and still is the one and only contribution that makes the whole format difficult to follow. I suggest you either cite it, follow your own advice and remove it or as far as i'm concerned, take your irrelevant points up with the relevant contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie bedfellows (talkcontribs) 16:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, mate. I just attempted to thank you for the edit (that i thought i had already done) but i think i 'undone' your edit by mistake. apologies for that. Richie bedfellows (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2015[edit]

Response To Bob Markley etc.[edit]

I would be happy to cooperate with anyone who shared the same interest in psychedelic artists. And to answer your question, yes, I had wanted to create a section pertaining to Markley's life in Oklahoma. If you could find the information I would gladly accept an addition to the article. I know about his acting and local television career, but if you could find one or two other events in Markley's early life, than that should be enough for an "Early Life" section. Thanks for any help and peace! User:TheGracefulSlick

Yes, exactly. I had been gathering information to create an article for The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band Companion compilation album if that is something you might want to read later. I cannot wait to read the Michael Lloyd article, anything about the members of the band is definitely worth reading! User:TheGracefulSlick

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ghmyrtle. You have new messages at Orduin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Not really a message - but it involves you. Happy reading. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I always knew you had a certain class, Gmh. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I should just accept defeet. If the shoe fits... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, may friend, don't you mean cap? It's a type of nitwear... Robevans123 (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
"April is the cruellest month"... allegedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Future Projects[edit]

Again, thanks for bringing to my attention my miscommunication about Mike Heron. I just wanted you to know I have some future articles regarding some 60s psychedelic bands. These include The Growing Concern, The Superfine Dandelion, and The Jelly Bean Bandits. I tell you this because I was wondering if you wanted to take one band for you to create an article. It helps me and maybe you would learn something new which is always a good thing. Thanks, TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2015

Never heard of any of them, I'm afraid!! Good luck, but be aware of the notability guidelines. I'd be happy to help with your projects, but I'm conscious of the fact that I don't necessarily always follow best practice, for instance in reference formatting, and there are a couple of Michael Lloyd projects that I may turn my mind to next. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll keep that in mind. I think they meet the requirements though. For instance, The Jelly Bean Bandits were considered one of the first punk rock influences. The Growing Concern was experimental and they will definitely be challenging to find info on. The last group also had punk influences and the members went on to have greater successes in music. Thanks for the consideration though and I hope your projects go well. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 7:21 February 2 2015

I stole some vocal styling[edit]

Haha, now who's vocal style does this remind you of [1]? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ... what a gem that record is (Don Covay and the Goodtimers: "I Stole Some Love / Snake In The Grass", Atlantic ‎– 45-2565, 1968) ... try not to get too upset....

The Signpost: 04 February 2015[edit]

Talk to RacerX11[edit]

Ghmyrtle, you have to talk with RacerX11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.155.200.92 (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for improvement in Garage rock heading[edit]

Thanks for bringing back the "raw form of rock and roll" phrase in the heading of the Garage rock article. I couldn't agree more. I was wondering if we could find a better term than "emerged" (although I admit that it is a great term in other applications). Perhaps we could replace "...emerged..." with "...was common in..." or "...was popular in..." (which is more similar to the old wording).

Since garage rock was not yet recognized as an identifiable form at the time, it needed more time to fully emerge in the public consciousness. It was a huge musical happening, no doubt, but it happened in practice before it happened in theory (talk about inverse logic!). It was really not until later that it was spoken of as a genre (when it became a sort of manifesto in the hands of rock journalists). What do you think about the wording? Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've made some further improvements. It's looking really good now. Thanks again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Again thanks[edit]

I just wanted to thank you on your past articles that I found to be superbly thought after. To be honest, when I composed my latest article, I attempted to mimic some regards to your style of writing. Obviously, I have my own way of writing, but your depth to a subject is always a good reference. I think I am improving in my writing which is always positive when concerning musicians who deserve acknowledgement. Anyways, thanks and peace! TheGracefulSlick ( talk)

Thanks for the compliments... but one problem is that many of the articles that I've written are not representative of good editing practice, and some of the articles I started or edited some years ago, and haven't revisited much since, fall well short in terms of referencing, etc.. So, learn the ropes yourself and don't just copy me! In particular, you might want to look at some guidance on inline referencing - such as this. Also, it's usual to sign using four tildes (~), not three. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Margie Alexander birthplace[edit]

What do you think if we changed her birthplace to Carrollton, Georgia, and Temple, Georgia moved to Notes. Carrollton is given by more reliable source (Whitburn's book and one article) Radosław Wiśniewski (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Radosław Wiśniewski

On second thoughts, you may be right. When I made this edit to change her birthplace, just after she died, I had access to the local newspaper obituary which I'm sure would have been supplied (or checked) by her family. I took that as reliable - but unfortunately it is no longer available online. The Whitburn source is usually reliable -though I know it occasionally has incorrect information - and in the circumstances I suppose we should treat it as the most reliable source available. So, yes, I'd be happy to revert myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2015[edit]

Someone made change to heading in Punk rock article; also, "emerge" would sound great in this application[edit]

It appears that an unsigned writer made a change in the time frame of the heading (at Punk rock) from "1974-" to "1969-." It looks that he made this change without discussion or consultation with other editors. If you and other editors don't have a problem with his change, I certainly don't (as you would expect me to say). Still, I understand that there is such a thing as protocol, so I thought I'd mention it to you.

I do think that if we revert back to the "1974-" wording, then we could finally replace the word "developed" with "emerged." Here the term would be fitting, in light of the reality that some can point to discussion of pre-1974 (not to mention post-1978) musical development in certain sources. All editors would, nonetheless, agree that it was definitely in the 70s that the whole thing, whenever it began (sooner or not), finally "emerged." Or we could just keep the whole statement it as it currently is. Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The edit was made here, by an anonymous editor without any explanation. The problem is that, regardless of whether you or anyone else believes it to be true, it doesn't reflect most sources and doesn't reflect the content of the article, which focuses on the post-mid-70s genre. I'll revert the change - and, if you want further discussion, please continue on the article talk page, not here. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That might be a discussion for another time down the road. I accept that we have to go along with prevailing view of where the majority of sources stand at this time. Thanks for making the correction. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Cherry Slush[edit]

Don't be turned away by the name you might like this band, The Cherry Slush. I'm guessing you like to learn new things so maybe it will be an interesting read. I made the page so give me an honest opinion about it if you choose to read it. Peace! TheGracefulSlick (talk) February 15, 2015 22:12

Thanks. I've made a few quick changes, but I'm not going to spend much time on it. Though it's really good to have the article and it's a great start, there are still a lot of things you need to do to improve your editing. For example, please please be aware that you should not infringe copyright by copying and pasting slabs of text from other sites, articles, etc. It is a major legal issue and will get you into severe trouble here. You must learn - as quickly as possible - to write text in your own words, and avoid copyright violations or close paraphrasing. Another issue is that you should not use - or, at least, minimise the use of - self-published blogs like this, and user-generated sites like Rate Your Music. If material is uncontentious and accurate, it may be included in some circumstances, but you should always check to try and find more reliable sources, and, if in doubt, leave it out. You should also - please, please, as it's very time-consuming for other editors - learn to format your references properly, so as not to include bare links. Those are the main issues I've picked up - there are others, such as remembering to check your spellings before clicking "save", and making sure the articles do not contain unnecessary trivia. But, it's great to have you here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I respect your honesty. I don't see where I pasted text because anything directly from the text was in quotations. I have someone who fixes citations so that shouldn't be an issue. I'll take into account the rest of your ways to improve so thanks again. I hope you had a little interest in the band and maybe listen to them. TheGracefulSlick(talk) 11:05 16 February 2015

Lesley Gore[edit]

I've nominated you as an updater here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Lesley_Gore. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm.. OK, thanks. But I hardly touched it... and it needs a lot more work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ideas[edit]

Hi I thought you might be interested in some bands I'm studying up on for future articles. I mean this solely as a musical interest since I'm aware of your good taste in music. Some bands I'm talking about are Oscar and the Majestics (written by me) and later projects like Federal Duck, The Glass Family, and The Magic Mixture. If you want to write an article pertaining to one than be my guest. Just make me aware so we both don't write the same thing. Anyways, I recommend you give them a listen, it's well worth it! TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:53, February 19, 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015[edit]

Welsh people[edit]

I'd be grateful if you could rationalise your repeated deletions of my contributions to the page "Welsh people" as I am currently completely baffled by your actions. I have added the names of notable Welsh people to this list, which in my opinion enhances the value of the page as an educational resource. Meanwhile, other contributors have added arguably less well-known Welsh people to the list, which you seem to deem worthy of inclusion. For example, could you please explain why - in your apparent opinion - John Rhys-Davies is more worthy of inclusion than Dylan Thomas? Similarly, why is Alan Turing included in this list when he does not appear to have any connection with Wales, whereas bizarrely, you have removed Welsh mathematician Robert Recorde, amongst several others, from the list without any explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joci Bach (talkcontribs) 15:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The guidance for including images in infoboxes like this is to include a small number of representative images - not the very large number that you wish to include. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia of useful information - not providing galleries of photographs of Welsh people. This has been discussed many times on that article talk page, I believe, as well as many similar article talk pages. The article infobox is not the place to list Welsh people - if you want that, see [[Category: Welsh people]]. Any further discussion of this point would be better on the article talk page, please - not here. And please remember to sign your comments using four of these: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015[edit]

Jimmy Savile[edit]

I would encourage you to allow the changes made on Jimmy Savile's entry correctly indicating that he was a pedophile and child rapist. This is public record and can be sourced from various legitimate news websites as well as public record. The fact that you keep deleting my corrections and leaving it as an entry at the bottom of his page is disturbing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31637320

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jimmy-savile-15-things-we-now-know-about-the-former-bbc-djs-shocking-abuse-10073038.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnochLight (talkcontribs) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No-one disputes the seriousness of the allegations against him. The question is whether your assertions should be given the prominence you give them in the opening sentence. That is a matter for discussion on the article talk page - where it has already been discussed, more than once - not here. And please remember to sign messages on talk pages with four of these tildes: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Toggery Five Deletion Removal[edit]

Hi I was wondering, since it appears it is agreed that they are note worthy, if it is okay to remove the warning on The Toggery Five article. It just seems the topic is closed, but if you think otherwise that is fine too. I won't make the decision myself because it doesn't seem like mine to make.

And here is some more musical artists I recommend listening to: Velvet Illusions, Jan & Lorraine, The Swamp Rats, and Plastic Penny. Peace, and happy listening. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:51 March 1, 2015

See WP:CLOSEAFD. You should wait for an admin to close it, after seven days or so. No rush. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok understood. I plan on revising the article when I am finished adding content to some bands I created articles for, and when my latest article is complete. You would not imagine all of the interesting history some of these groups have! Thanks for the help, again, and best of luck to your future projects. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:30 March 3, 2015

Roger Cecil[edit]

Upon re-reading the source I misinterpreted the statement. Thanks for correcting that. RAP (talk) 14:42 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Lynsey de Paul (again)[edit]

Hi Ghm. Can the Daily Mail be used a source for estates? (By the way, did you really mean to put this back in October? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ha! Thank you, belatedly. I'm reluctant to use the Mail as a source for anything. I've removed it, and will wait to see if there's any discussion. It's pretty trivial material anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I don't know. £1.8m wouldn't be trivail to me! And then there's also the Battersea Dogs Home or whatever it is ... Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Lowell Goddard[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)