Talk:Mike Read

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

Running joke[edit]

Hilarious that his Guardian 'Comment is free' post and the comments on it are, this is no place for the 'commandments' running joke from it. Some of the reviews of his musicals ("hard to feel anything other than incredulous contempt") on the other hand... Lovingboth 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is My Fanny?[edit]

Some years ago, Read penned a musical - the name of which escapes me - from which a song called My Fanny escaped, being played several times on TV and radio, though it possibly wasn't a pop chart hit. It's lyrics included the line "Where are the baths where they taught you to swim". Can anyone elaborate? NB: The song may have course been named after a Welsh girl whose name sounds like "My Fanny", but who knows. I think it's important that this musical work is not lost to history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.121.252 (talkcontribs).

Did you mean "Myfanwy" or was this just an excuse for some cheap innuendo and the opportunity to say "My Fanny escaped"? ;-) Fourohfour 15:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
If Myfanwy is pronounced "My Fanny", then yes, that is the song. No, it wasn't for innuendo purposes (though I didn't know what to think when I first heard him talking about it). Can you give any more details please of when this was released etc? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.121.252 (talkcontribs).
No idea personally, sorry. Fourohfour 18:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it was a poem he put music to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.121.252 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It was indeed. The poem Myfanway is a very well known poem written by John Betjeman, and is available (among other places) on the double CD Sound of Poetry (also available in digital format at places like EMusic.com, at least at the time I typed this.) It was first released some time in the 1980's, although I don't know exactly when. The only recording I know of is sung by David Essex.RichardJFoster (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed. WTF is going on here?![edit]

Can anyone explain why there have been so many edits in the past month, and what all those changes are about. I notice that some vandalism and/or nonsense has slipped through since I last saw this (e.g. "(that is, until he realises they're 'gay'!)", "featured heterosexual rock stars"). Not good for an article that already had people inserting crap and dubious facts to start off with.

What's going on?! Fourohfour 15:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

These facts are not dubious. They are simply unfeasible. See the 'I'm backing Boris' link for details. Drella Melmoth 17:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the "dubious" facts I referred to was nonsense over the guy's birth date and blatant garbage that had been changed or added to a few months back, before this wave of edits kicked off. Fourohfour 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this article feasible?[edit]

After checking with a couple of Cockney builders it seems this article is feasible. But we must build more 'underground' spaces for these articles - in fact put them all 'underground'. Then hopefully we can sell this article from official merchandise stores across the Capital. I will also make sure we find a WikiLaureate who can write about this article in song and verse. Relax - don't do it.

OK, It seems the feasible joke is related to Mike's ideas about car parks from his unpublished manifesto that made the light of day in his comment is free piece. While it is the style of the article and not the facts contained within, I think I agree that the running joke is not "feasible" Biscit 21:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup - amount of vandalism allowed into this article is a disgrace[edit]

This article has had a problem with intermittent addition of nonsense, and possibly vandalising fact-changes going back months no. However, since the start of July or thereabouts it has gone up vastly and this garbage is being left in the article.

For example:-

  • Comparison shows subsequent addition over one week of nonsense about "feasible".
  • Comparison (as described above) includes more "feasible" nonsense, blatant vandalism ("heterosexual rock stars") and lame jokes ("Although he wasn't given the chance by the British public it is not beyond doubt that he could feasibly have completed a bush tucker trial and fed his camp mates in a humanitarian fashion as befits the man.").

The article is now so full of this crap mixed up with legitimate edits that it would be wiser to revert to a *much* earlier version and figure out what (if anything) since then was worth retaining. To use the current version and attempt to filter out the nonsense/vandalism would almost certainly allow a lot of it to slip through. Fourohfour 12:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with this - hence my over the top comments above - not really an interested party to this article, but stumbled across it. It may be something that has to die down - given the possible link to the London Mayoral Elections, which Mike Read has decided he is not standing for. Of course the vandals could put something about that instead. Wait and see I think. Stevebritgimp 21:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be more appropriate to revert and protect if necessary. Fourohfour 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think the comments about his sexuality and feasibility should be laid to rest as this man has just died - let's just remember the good times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.172.227 (talkcontribs).
You're thinking of the other Mike Reid (note the spelling), and the article wasn't criticising this Mike Read's own sexuality anyway. Not that I think this makes it any more acceptable. Fourohfour 18:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is feasible that they both died. Rolf Mayo 21:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should just try to remember the good times we had with Mike and consider his friends such as Cliff Richard who may be reading this after the funeral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.79.172.227 (talkcontribs).
Rolf, thank you for drawing our attention to the fact that you were the idiot responsible for inserting that pile of unfunny sub-Uncyclopedia vandalism into the article. Fourohfour 15:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

/waves Rolf Mayo 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems everyone's trying to be funny. I would definitely support revert and protect if that gets the job done. This is obviously a persistent problem. In fact Uncyclopedia is a good suggestion. People need to go there and get creative.Stevebritgimp 12:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You must be crazy. Uncyclopedia is even worse than this place. -88.111.83.69 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is a joke. The section (including referenced sources) on his being made bankrupt twice, and having to sell his record collection as a result, aws deleted on 1 Jan 2010, the reason being given as "us record buyers like MR & don't like the way he's been treated!" Being made bankrupt is serious and being made bankrupt twice is almost unheard of. There are obviously some diehard fans out there who wish to re-write this man's history. Robertmclean2 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

The pictures on this page are of the wrong Mike Read, I am sure the Mike Read from BBC Radio will not be impressed as he is still very much alive ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.168.134.109 (talkcontribs).

Despite the insertion of nonsense into this article, there were never any images of the deceased Mike Reid on this page. Are you trying to be funny? Fourohfour 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Awful[edit]

This article is a mess - whether because of the vandalism mentioned above or not - but it looks like it's been written by Read himself (or a close friend) given the use of words like "entertained" in conjunction with his appearances for the Conservative party. I'm glad to say I don't know enough about him (other than his moral "stance" against Frankie Goes to Hollywood (which isn't even mentioned!)) to write this up properly, but it really ought to be reverted to a stub until someone can do something decent here. Stevingtonian (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trainspotters - High Rise excerpt.ogg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Trainspotters - High Rise excerpt.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trainspotters - High Rise single picture cover.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Trainspotters - High Rise single picture cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tulip Rose Read[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge into Mike Read. -- DarkCrowCaw 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Blue Tulip Rose Read article is unlikely to be expanded with verifiable information, and the subject's notability is unclear (the article was proposed for deletion in 2007 but it was contested) so I've proposed a merge to this article. snigbrook (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Many months later... I support the above proposal. We shouldn't have an article on her, per WP:BLP1E - a merge into this article would be appropriate. Robofish (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded it slightly with her appearance on Britains Got Talent. However I can see the merit in merging it into the Mike Read article. Hoppytroffy (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, she has become, if only marginally so, a personality in her own right by doing something other than stalking Mike Read (her appearance on Britain's Got Talent). So I'd rather see her article stay, personally. Orellette (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Full name, date and place of birth[edit]

The lead section gives Mike Read's full name as Michael David Kenneth Read, and states that he was born in Heywood on 1 March 1947. The only source cited is findmypast.co.uk, which shows that a Michael D. K. Read was born in Heywood in 1947. How do we know that this is the same person as the article's subject, and what is the source for the middle names David Kenneth and the birthday 1 March? EALacey (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)