User talk:Ghmyrtle

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

Slight correction on Hassinger[edit]

You wouldn't be mad if I made an ever-so-slight correction in the Dave Hassinger article. I'm going off of memory here, but I remember that when reading the notes on my re-mastered Stones' CD's, they worked with Hassinger mainly on the songs they recorded at RCA in L.A. However, they recorded at various studios in London, too, usually with Glyn Johns, even in the pre-Olympic days. Their first album was recorded at Delea Lane studios in London, probably with someone other than Johns. They recorded (I believe their second or third album) in Chicago, probably with other engineers--I'll have to go look. However in '65, Johns became their main engineer when in London and Hassinger their main sound-guy when in L.A. Some of their albums have a mix from sessions in London & L.A. However, I think that Aftermath was all done with Hassinger in L.A. So, I made an ever-so-slight change in wording: we'can't say he worked with them all of the time in the mid 60s. But I think you will approve of the change. You have taught me the virtue of striving for laser-accuracy. Thanks,Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. There may be a lot more in Stones' sources about Hassinger's input that I didn't get round to looking up. I've tweaked the infobox details a little, to give his age at death - you may want to look at that, for future reference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Just went and checked the liner notes to my CD's (UK and US versions depending) and it goes something like this: the Stones first album was done at Regent Sound, not Delea Lane, as I had thought; 12x5 (n/a - probably done at Regent Sound); Now! ("Chess in Chicago, RCA in Hollywood, Regent Sound in London"--the RCA person would be Hassinger of course); Out of Their Heads ("Hollywood, Chicago, London"); December's Children ("Dave Hassinger, Ron Malo, and Glyn Johns"--my hunch is that Malo would have been in Chicago at Chess and Johns at IBC in London); Aftermath (Hassinger--he even does the liner notes and says that the Stones are a "gas" to work with!). Something like that... Thanks for adding a lot of information about this great engineer who worked on so many legendary recordings--and I know TheGracefulSlick would be thankful too, in light of Hassinger's work with The Electric Prunes and (I do believe) The Chocolate Watchband...and oh yes, Jefferson Airplane, featuring the graceful Grace Slick (whom those of us still living are grateful for)! Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015[edit]

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ISB article expansion[edit]

This is not going to be anytime soon because I have some other plans I wanted to complete, but I wanted to expand upon the ISB article with more info and reliable sources beyond the small addition I made to their appearance at Woodstock. However, I know you are just as big a fan of their music as I am so if I start working on it in my sandbox, can I possibly get an "ok" or "not ok" from you every time I want to make replacements, additions, etc.? I don't want to accidently do anything that might upset you so I think this might be a good solution to address that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, you're not likely to "upset" me (unless you go round trying to delete articles I've started and worked on!). I probably don't have any more ISB sources than you do - the BeGlad compendium, Joe Boyd's memoirs, etc. - but I do have the original early vinyl LPs... and memories of seeing them a few times! Happy to help if I can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, if will be awhile from now, but it will be a huge undertaking. I have an additional book called Gently Tender which is about their recording history and another lying around about the history of Elektra's recording artists, so I would imagine the ISB is in there. I only have their first three vinyls (it's hard to find them here!), but some of their CD reissues are very informative.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: - @TheGracefulSlick: I've now picked up (in a bargain store!) a biography of Clive Palmer - so don't be surprised if that makes an appearance as a source in due course. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Ghmyrtle,

Thank you for your many edits to Wikipedia.

I'm not inclined to edit the piece, but you (and most everyone else) are mistaken in the belief that the name of the Cadillacs hit song was "Speedoo." The name of both the song and the nickname of the lead singer were both "Speedo" with a single "O."

How could that be? It was a simple typo on the record label and by the time they realized it, no one wanted to spend the money to make the change. So this is an example (and hardly the only one) of where seemingly documentary evidence is wrong and the error is picked up as cant.

How do I know this? My brother worked with the band and Esther Navarro. He was there when the error was discovered. So take this FWIW. Cheers! -- Cecropia (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC) (Aged Bureaucrat)

How ridiculous! As if there could ever be any record printing errors. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Cecropia - That may well be true, I don't know, it seems plausible - but I haven't seen any reliable sources giving that explanation. The fact that later versions of the song name it as "Speedo" rather than "Speedoo" might be worth mentioning, perhaps. Thanks for your other comments - I try my best (only occasionally interrupted by stalkers hijacking my talk page. (Insert smiley here.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"I 'ate you, Butler!" ... [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Kim Fowley[edit]

Dear Ghmyrtle,

I see you reverted my comments re: Kim Fowley. What specific standards concern you regarding my modification? There is clearly more to this bio than is posted on the K.F. page and these facts of the matter should be included. What do you recommend?

All of the best,

emcauley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcauley (talkcontribs) 19:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I've raised the question on the article talk page of whether the allegations should be mentioned in the lead of the article. I don't think they should - at this stage we are talking about one person's allegations, and we should not be giving them undue weight. Anyway, any further discussions should take place on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015[edit]

Stage I expansion of Garage rock article is complete![edit]

I have finished the Stage I expansion of the garage rock article! I will enter it in put it in tomorrow. It is on view in my sandbox 1. You are also welcome to comment about it on the talk page there. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC):I've had a very quick first look. There is certainly some copyediting needed, and I also need to look at some sources that I have, such as Lester Bangs' essay "Protopunk: The Garage Bands" (in The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll). The section on origins needs some work, especially to draw on references to young white bands assimilating (directly and indirectly) the work of R&B performers like Little Richard, Hank Ballard, Larry Williams, The Isley Brothers, etc. etc. For instance, although the Kingsmen's "Louie, Louie" was no doubt an influence on other bands later, it derived from Richard Berry's original, via Rockin' Robin Roberts.

In a sense, there were two distinct phases to the genre - pre- and post-British Invasion. There were proto-garage (?!) bands already existing across the US, and then the numbers mushroomed and styles developed after the Beatles appeared. I'm not sure how much that is

reflected in sources, but it is certainly my perception. Regarding the section on the UK... I think it needs to be rewritten, and cut back. The reason is that, though stylistically similar, the terms "garage band" and "garage rock" were really never applied to Britain. In Britain, "garage rock" is seen as a US phenomenon (to some extent paralleled in Latin America, etc.).. In the UK, we did not have garages at that time - the term "garage band" is not used in the UK to describe UK bands. But, we had a vast number of beat groups. The article on beat music is woefully inadequate, but in my view that is where the British bands like The Troggs, etc., should be mentioned - with links across, of course.

Those comments are just from a very brief initial look at what you've done. It's not a hostile criticism - you're doing a fine job - it's just that I think a lot more work is needed. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: Probably better to have this discussion on the article talk page. I'll move my comments there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Gosh, the craziest thing happened. When I received the book I ordered about Florida garage bands, guess what was on the first few pages? The author relates the JFK assassination, the Beatles first visit, and garage--all in one fell swoop! I couldn't believe it--I thought I must have been out of my mind. So, I brought it up on the talk page--and it is now sourced in the article with very detailed citations & quotes in the citations. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to enter some of the sections about regional scenes tomorrow. However, one problem is that if I just add one region, the article will look woefully incomplete to the readers, so I was wondering if I could add all of the American regional sub-sections tomorrow, but then I could step back and wait at least a week or two (or longer if need be) before adding the international sections--that would give you plenty of time to comb through them and there would be no rush. I could push off the international stuff 'till even later than that if you need extra time. Or would you prefer that I put in one American region at a time? Either way, just let me know. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Do whatever you like - but don't feel upset, humiliated, etc. if I, or anyone else, then changes it, based on different sources, the need for copyediting, etc etc. . That's just the way it goes. You do not, and will never, "own" that or any other article - nor does anyone else. It will never be "finished". But, as I've said before, you are doing a fine job - don't get disheartened. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I perfectly understand. I don't pretend to be the owner, and I welcome the participation of others. I don't mind constructive changes, particularly if they are made by someone of your experience, because I know it will all work out for the best--you have my full trust. And, I thank you for your generous assistance. And by the way, thank you for your moral support too. It means so much to me. I couldn't be doing what I'm doing now if it hadn't been for your mentorship. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the things you've put into the origins section. You've been able to track down the perfect sources to express what we had been wanting to say about the early origins. Bingo! Garagepunk66 (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Italic text

I like the picture of Richard Berry in the origins section! Thanks. I feel strongly that the Garage rock article underscore African American, Hispanic, and female influences and contributions (as well as international), and I am glad you share that concern. And, thanks also for correcting some of my little typos.

  • One tidbit: In the "Critical recognition" section I'm not so sure that we should say "...but unsophisticated..." concerning how garage rock was perceived before it was designated as a genre. I want to make sure that the article will not accidently be perceived as condescending to the genre. Though it was, no doubt, often unsophisticated (which of course is a characteristic we and all fans love), there are still, nonetheless, examples of garage rock bands using jazz influences (i.e. Witness Inc. "Not You Girl") or time changes (The Gaunga Dyns "No One Cares"). But, whether "sophisticated" or "unsophisticated," the point I intended in the first sentence (of the "Critical recognition" section) is that, prior to its designation as a genre, it was not really thought about much, consciously speaking, other than just "typical rock" of its time. So, when we add "unsophisticated," to the statement, it suggests somehow that people may have been more consciously aware of it (i.e. as a separate entity) than likely was the case--at least up to the early 70s--up to then, the older generation thought of all rock music as being unsophisticated. My thoughts expressed in the opening sentence of "Critical recognition" are influenced by Lenny Kaye's liner notes from the original Nuggets; according to Lenny Kaye: "This is the story...of a changeling era which dashed by so fast no one knew what to make of it while it was around..." [1] By the early 70s people were becoming more aware of how the garage thing could be differentiated, but probably not sooner than that. Without other sources, the only thing we can safely say is that it was only thought of as "typical rock of the period." Perhaps it would be best to take "...but unsophisticated..." out of the statement. I'm sure that you see my point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I take your point, to an extent. In the US such bands may not have been seen as especially "unsophisticated" - but in the UK it is what differentiates the Troggs (who I realise are seen as a garage band, to some extent) from other bands of the same era such as the Hollies, the Kinks, the Who, the Stones, etc., who I would say are never seen as "garage bands". I'm happy to leave "unsophisticated" out for the moment, but I think we will need to look carefully at the wording of what we say about British bands in due course, to explain some of the subtleties. Anyway, I'm going away for a week, so will reconnect when I get back. I read your rewrite all the way through for the first time last night, and I think that, overall, you've done a first-rate job - congratulations! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, and they carry extra weight in light of all of your many accomplishments at Wikipedia. By the way, I really enjoy when we've had the opportunities to collaborate. I like how, even when we play the "devils advocate" role, it somehow always works out for the best--improving the article in ways that I could not have predicted. The Origins section is really looking good. Its new emphasis on Richard Berry is wonderful, and for that, I give all credit to you. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I found the perfect word "rudimentary" to go in the first sentence of "Critical appreciation." It perfectly satisfies the ideas we have both been trying to express in that line, and it strikes the perfect balance. I think you'll like it a lot! Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, some more unexpected good news. I just noticed that on pg. 12 in Greg Shaw's liner notes (essay) in the booklet of the 1998 Nuggets box set, he addresses the exact topic of suburban demographics/baby boom/etc. How could I have not noticed his words when they were right under my nose? It may be that I might have read his statements a while back and forgot about them, but that they registered unconsciously in my mind. Quoting Shaw: "Why should this be so? Demographics mainly. The Baby boomers were in high school. The economy was thriving. Families were moving out to the suburbs, and Mom and Dad were buying their kids a guitar or drum kit and giving them a garage, where they could practice their Play Guitar with the Ventures. The rock 'n' roll culture of the '50s, impromptu and short-lived as it had been, still taught the next generation that they could define their own idea of cool and that they could do it through music." He not only gets into the suburban demographics but also suggests that the early boomers were just old enough to remember 50s rock 'n' roll. So, we might be able to re-instate the socio-cultural statements about demographics after all (see my sandbox 1 for what the re-inclusion could look like) . It looks like we now have a direct source to make it possible. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. A fuller quote is here:

Grass roots rock persisted, laying the bedrock for what came next. There is no name for the local music of this period, roughly 1959-63, but some have called it 'protopunk.' It was very much a regional phenomenon: a band from Kansas or Minnesota might be popular over a nine-state area and have substantial hits that never made the national charts. The music was mostly instrumental --simplistic blues shuffles, often amped-up to murderous voltage and performed at frat houses and armories. The rare band with a vocalist usually featured raunchy R & B or maybe a Gene Vincent oldie. In California 'surf music' came along in the wake of Dick Dale. Again instrumental (the vocal harmonies came later), for some crazy reason surf music caught on in the Midwest, too, leading to rowdy milestones such as The Trashmen's 1963 anthem "Surfin' Bird."

I've often speculated about what might have happened if The Beatles had not come along, because by 1963 there was a raging regional rock scene in America that contained the seeds of a fantastic punk movement... ...1963 was a great year in American rock. In The Trashmen's home of Minneapolis, hundreds of local bands were knocking out brilliant, goofy novelty records, from "Liar Liar" by the Castaways to "Action Woman" by The Litter. In the Pacific Northwest, the Wailers were blasting audiences out of their skulls, and the first versions of "Louie Louie" were hitting the airwaves. John Fred & His Playboy Band were knocking 'em out in Louisiana with "Boogie Chillun" and the like. Down in Texas, Sam the Sham was getting ready to write "Wooly Bully." In fact, wherever you looked, the country was in ferment. Why should this be so? Demographics, mainly. The baby boomers were in high school. The economy was thriving. Families were moving out to the suburbs, and Mom and Dad were buying their kids a guitar and drum kit and giving them a garage, where the could practice their Play Guitar With The Ventures. The rock 'n' roll culture of the '50s, impromptu and short-lived as it had been, still taught the next generation that they could define their own idea of cool, and that they could do it through music. In fact, teen culture was thriving, with hot rod races, surfing competitions, slot cars, go-carts, teen fairs, and, for the precocious few, a glimpse into the tantalizing world of the Beatniks.

(Nuggets Volume I box set booklet, "Sic Transit Gloria... The Story of Punk Rock on the '60s," Greg Shaw, pgs. 18-19)
I think we do need to make clear in the article the two phases of development - say, 1958-63 (pre-British Invasion - as described by Shaw in the quote) and 1964-66 (post-British Invasion - with growing major label commercialization). Incidentally, I don't know what Shaw's basis is for saying that the Litter's "Action Woman" was from 1963 - I thought it was recorded in 1966 - and "Liar Liar" was from 1965. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too--Litter in '66 and Castawys in '65. I love Shaw's writings, but like most writers, even the best ones, he has his occasional share of "faux pas." I think no less highly of him and would consider him for most garage-related issues to be reliable (like most good writers, reliable but not infallible). In his favor, the statement about demographics seems to resonate and hit the mark. By the way, you know that I agree with him in his assessment of protopunk as pre-1963. I have to admit that very statement has influenced me. He admits later in the essay that he regrets having been one of the critics in the late 70s to shift the definition of punk away from the pre-1975 conception (substituting protopunk for earlier times) and wishes to see the earlier time-framework (i.e. 1963-onward) restored. While he will probably never get that wish, I think he has the authority to say that, in light of having been one of the original people to define the garage genre and use the term "punk." When I am writing in an article I have to suppress my personal opinion and use the term "protopunk" for 60s stuff--I have to humbly accept the prevailing view, even if I respectfully disagree.

  • As for major label commercialization: that mainly came after the garage era (at least as garage rock bands are concerned). The garage era is the last time we had all of the little "mom and pop" record labels and locally-owned radio stations. In fact, the garage era was probably the golden age of all the little record labels. There were hundreds if not thousands of them before 1969 (on Garage Hangover one can view a long list of regional labels, which is by no means complete). No doubt the post-British Invasion rock explosion presented an opportunity for big labels to make big profits--but, the unforeseen problem the big labels faced was that that there were just too many bands and competition from small record labels--there was too much dispersion, and the big labels had not yet learned how to "consolidate" resources--that would finally begin to happen at the end of the 60s. Greg Shaw's essay in Nuggets box set goes into this. Garage's "pre-corporate" status is one of its essential features and a large part of its appeal. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that's partly true - but bands like the Standells, the Strangeloves, and the Electric Prunes were really the commercial creations of the major music industry companies - particularly because they became successful through recording the songs of established industry insiders - and yet are still counted as "garage bands". Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the same thing could be said of many successful acts in any era--an artist or band has to meet the right people and make the right connections to get their big break--and I'm sure that most bands would not say no to success. People have said the same things about Elvis who came out ten years earlier--of course he had recorded at Sun, but Col. Parker definitely got him involved in the higher-level commercial machinery of the time. Then, following the rise and fall of the original 50s rock and roll artists, the record companies stated peddling figures like Pat Boone and Niel Sedaka. The Monkees were definitely created. A similar point can possibly be made about the Strangeloves. As for the Standells: they had been around for awhile and paid some dues before they met Ed Cobb. The Prunes moved up pretty fast, but they had a prior life as the Sanctions--certainly they were fortunate that Hassinger took interest in them, and there is no doubt that he played a major role in their creative development. But, I don't see the success of these groups as indicating any real departure from how major labels and the industry had operated before the mid-60s. Although, I do think the big companies developed a more savvy approach towards the end of the 60s--they had to figure out how to deal with some of the unforeseen challenges of dealing with the post-British Invasion proliferation of bands, which while a great opportunity, had taken them off-guard--keep in mind that Capitol Records was initially very reluctant to promote the Beatles--EMI in England had to farm them out to labels like Swan and V-J before Capitol would touch them. In his liner notes, Shaw writes that in the mid-60s the music world was in a state of "upheaval," and that even the big labels were having unexpected headaches (even Don Kirshener ended up having a lot of headaches with the Monkees!). So the labels had to learn to narrow-down the field to maximize profitability. When they finally developed a sleeker "marketing strategy," that was one of several reasons for the downfall of garage, which essentially depended on a grass-roots network to survive. That is one factor that we could address in the "Demise" section.Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I know it was me a couple of weeks ago who had said it would be OK to remove demographic statements (the ones suburban post-war America, memory of early rock & roll, etc.), because, at that time, we did not have a direct source. But, now that we have the direct source, I feel that we can now safely re-instate the comments--which would help establish an essential and meaningful sociological context. But, please get back to me and let me know if you would object at this point. My fingers are getting "itchy" to put it back in. Oh also, if you don't mind, I'd like to put the international section into the article. You will notice that I have modified the British section to answer to your concerns, so I think you will find what is there now to be far more in line with your perception. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I just entered the international section to the G.R. article. I think you will like it a lot. You will notice that I re-worked the British section, which is now re-contextualized as you had recommended. I will be adding the Psychedelic garage section soon, which will steer the article back to an American focus and make a transition to the Decline section--so that is on the way, don't worry. I expressed this same idea in latest thread in the talk section of the article.Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Kaye, Lenny. Nuggets: Artyfacts from the First Psychedelic Era 1965-1968 (original essay liner notes). Electra, 1972


Darn... As being a musician from Scandinavia I'm pretty familiar with what schlager is in most countries, although I admit the meaning in German culture is slightly more specific than in the rest. I also live in the UK so I know it's virtually impossible to explain English speakers the difference between pop and schlager. And there are no reliable sources. For instance, several state that the term schlager is translated from the English 'hit' or 'hit song', but how do you know? Apparently it's a style that dates from no later than the 1800s, and it could be much older. Anyway, this is something that English speakers _just_can't_get_ so I have to leave it to your expertise. Perhaps valid sources will appear in the future. Piechjo (talk) 08:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your wording because, in my view, the "schlager" term can rightly be applied to singers like Tony Christie and Engelbert Humperdinck, but not to performers of "The Great American Songbook", country music, or cover bands. But, the earlier wording of the article was no better! Perhaps the term "traditional pop music" is the best parallel. You're right, we need sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of sources on the Internet, although it tends to be all kinds of various stuff. The best one's that could lead to an understanding are the ones that contain music and pictures. Prepare for your first schlager video: -- Here you see a band singing and playing music that is probably called 'pop' in your country, and couples dancing. However the uploader thinks this is 'šlāgeris'. Why??? Second, "schlager has often been compared to country". -- Of course it has. These are both terms for _adult_oriented_pop_, but in two different cultures that use have developed different terminology (someone's always going to argue that šlāgeris is different from schlager). What is schlager in continental Europe can be country in USA and I could look for a reference to the great American Songbook but I need to go back to work. Piechjo (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I've seen the term 'traditional pop music' used although I'm not sure it's very good - talking about schlager of the 21st century. Piechjo (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've made a couple of edits to the article, drawing on this Guardian piece. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Shout! Shout! (Knock Yourself Out)"[edit]

For want of something better to do, I am presently drafting up a new Wiki article on the Ernie Maresca song, "Shout! Shout! (Knock Yourself Out)". Two things, if you would be so kind. Firstly, as you will see the title presently defaults to Maresca himself, and I can not remember how to stop that happening. Secondly, could you have a look in your esteemed book and confirm a #25 US R&B chart success for the track. A page number would be good (plus whatever else it is I need to include in the reference source). The draft is in my sandbox if you can access that - you may have something else to add before it goes 'live'. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Qu'est-ce que c'est?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Merci, or should that be mercy. Why do all French pop musicians make songs sound like souped-up menus, including copious amounts of garlic ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
...and the answer to your first question (oops - sorry!) is simply to go to the page that the redirect is from - [2] - remove the redirect, and edit it as normal. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Trés bien - thanks for your assistance. Said article is now on the main thingamy. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
PS. I managed to find 18 pages (apart from those to our own) that link to this article, which should keep the deletionist squad at bay. I am a little nervous, perhaps unduly, because my history of creating new song based articles is littered with problems (eg. "Gin House Blues" and "Need Your Love So Bad"). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Vaneese Thomas[edit]

One of the names on my 'Reds or blues' list is the above name singer. She is one of Rufus Thomas' children, and had three US R&B hit singles in the late 1980s (1987's "Let's Talk It Over" being her biggest success). After her modest chart run she appears as a backing vocalist on numerous work, many of which appear to have a Wiki article (around fifty or so, if you put her name in the Wiki search box). Also see here at AMG. Anyhow, the point is that she appears to be more of your type of artist (classic R&B/jazz) than mine, and I wondered if you fancied putting her on your 'to do' list. If so, I'll remove her from my list. Either way, there is no rush. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

A bit too late for me - I've realised that my interest in musicians ended in about 1982 - but I can put together a stub fairly easily, I should think. Did I tell you I met old Rufus once? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Really !!? Was he doing the funky chicken or behaving himself ? Tell you what, I'll have a go at Vaneese - it will do me good to spread my wings a bit (another chicken reference). Then you can have a scratch around in my sandbox (and another one) when I'm done. How's that for a deal. Fair or fowl ?... I'll stop now.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a good plan. Yes, I happened to find myself in Beale Street in Memphis one day, as you do (the only time I've ever been there, mind), and he was sitting at the bar of the place I went into - so, I introduced myself, had a brief chat, and he went on his way. All very friendly. That is my one and only claim to having a connection to R&B history! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if name dropping is the game, I am on friendly speaking terms with Adil Rashid, and once did a radio interview with a Harlem Globetrotter - can't remember which one. Oh, and I went to school with Paul Rose and used to drink in Phil Lowe's pub. The nearest I've got to really being sporty ! Whilst I am bragging, I also recorded some music (a very loose term) at Fairview Studios. Never been to Memphis though. Maybe one day I'll visit the Deep South (meeting all those Yanks rather puts me off the idea).

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I went to Tony Hall, Baron Hall of Birkenhead's 18th birthday party. And - on another occasion - Derek Hatton sat on the arm of my chair. And, just the other month, I chatted briefly to Robin Williamson. So there!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
...and I once served Susan Hampshire a lager and lime... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I bet she turned up her nose at that (boom boom). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyhow, I am about finished on the article - do you have anything to add ? Ta, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on this article - she is a more interesting individual than I first supposed. No songs about chickens though; which slightly disappointed me. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Poor old Rufus though - his article needs a lot of work. If only I wasn't itchin' and scratchin' so much I could tackle it..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I bet you can do that 'puppy dog eyes look' too. I'll have a little go at it - not really my field is this, although I have yet to discover which precise paddock is really mine. Did I tell you we keep chickens ? Only three though now; Freckle, Bee-Bee and Squeak. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I did some work on the Rufus Thomas article. It is still a long way short of perfect, but every little (dog or chicken) helps ! Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Free Thought[edit]

This is a logical correction of a false attributing statement that contradicts the definition of what a freethinker is:

"Regarding religion, free thinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.[9]"

If a free thinker forms his own opinion rather than adhering to a belief based on what others, then one cannot say all free thinkers hold the same opinion about the existence of supernatural phenomena or about insufficient evidence. The only agreement that free thinkers have is that they form their own opinions based on observation and reason — reference is the definition given in the article from Webster's, In attempting to summarize one view of freethinking, the above entry oversteps the definition. Just because it is sourced by a self-proclaimed "free thinker" does not make it valid.

To retain the meaning of this text but in a true statement, I have adjusted it to:

"Regarding religion, some self-proclaimed freethinkers claim that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.[9] "

Please let me know if you see a problem with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeThinkingBeing (talkcontribs) 15:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an argument here - if you want an argument, raise your suggestion on the article talk page - but the issue, I think, is that what you believe "free thought" to be is not the same as what, historically, the term has meant. It is inappropriate for you to add your personal, unsourced, commentary into the article. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - something to be avoided. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The Ink Spots[edit]

There is so much conflicting and false information on The Ink Spots. What sources do we accept as "reliable" and what stories will we go with? Many reliable sources claim that James Nabbie replaced Bill Kenny in 1954 when Kenny decided to go solo. We "know" this to be false but how can we "prove" otherwise when multiple reliable sources tell us so? The same argument can be made for anyone who claimed (or claims) to be an original Ink Spot. One could re-write the "Ink Spots" article using different sources and come up with completely different lineups, members, stories, dates, locations, recordings etc. I've spent the past 6 years pretty much dedicating my life to researching The Ink Spots and the spin-off/imposter groups and I can tell you there is MUCH more misinformation out there than there is factual about the Ink Spots. I strongly encourage you to just take a few months of heavy (unbiased) research of the group and see what you come up with. It's easy to say "well this article says..." but it takes much more than just reading a few articles to really understand the history of the Ink Spots and separate fact from fiction. Even the original members would give incorrect dates or say things that simply didn't add up. Goldberg himself has admitted to me that his book contains a few factual errors and even it (as of now) is considered the more reliable source for information pertaining to the Ink Spots. For instance, the claim that no one could prevent anyone else from using the Ink Spots name... this is simply not true. Ivory Watson and Charles Fuqua both stopped "imposter" groups for using the name... or at least several reliable sources tell us so. Bill Kenny stopped Watson from using the name and stopped Fuqua from using the word "original" in his groups billing. And in 1975 Bill Kenny sued Mike Douglas for having an "imposter" Ink Spots group on his show claiming that they were the "originals". I won't revert your edit or continue trying to draw a line between the real Ink Spots and the spin-off/imposters because I'm simply tired of playing this game but it will be interesting to see what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillKenny14 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your efforts, but I don't have the time or inclination to do that amount of research myself. The basic issue is that Wikipedia is not here to determine "the facts". It is here to summarise the "facts" as they have been reported by others, in reliable independent sources. I don't have Goldberg's book, and I'm afraid that I wouldn't have the time to read or digest it thoroughly even if I did. My only concern is that editors should report what has been published - and, if there is good reason to say that published information is factually wrong, we should caveat it, use footnotes, etc., but not seek to change or put a particular slant on what the sources say without any explanation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The Ink Spots disbanded in 1954... the original Ink Spots (for which the Wikipedia article is the subject of) made their final appearance in July of 1954. I think that if folks like yourself who keep linking "non-original" aka "spin-off" or "imposter" groups to the Ink Spots article and have an issue with my edits, you ought to create a new page focused specifically and entirely on THOSE groups. It's incredibly false and misleading when someone makes a claim like "Greg Carroll was a member of The Ink Spots". I'm simply trying to draw the line between original and non-original Ink Spots groups so as not to mislead. Goldberg, Proctor and other authorities on The Ink Spots all use the term "imposters" to describe these groups. By my count there were OVER 300 men (and two women) since 1934 who have claimed to be "Ink Spots"... this isn't counting instrumentalists who make that claim too. I'd say about 50 to 100 of these people were reported by the AP (and other 'reliable' sources) to be "original Ink Spots". Who's to say they weren't? And if I argue it who will be there to make the decision if my argument is valid? I respect that we should summarize the "facts" (what are those?) rather than determine them but if we add just anything we find from a reliable source to the article, not only will it be a mess of misinformation and confusion but it will be grossly misleading. There is no room for discussion apparently because whenever I edit something you're there to revert it. You said "if there is good reason to say that published information is factually wrong, we should caveat it, use footnotes, etc., but not seek to change or put a particular slant on what the sources say without any explanation." Who is the one with the final decision that gets to decide whether something is factually wrong? If you won't take time to do the research I certainly hope it wouldn't be you. And when we get conflicting information from the same source, then what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillKenny14 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You claim: " the original Ink Spots (for which the Wikipedia article is the subject ...)". But, that's simply not the case. The article is about the Ink Spots. Period. As such, it needs to fully address questions like the debatable legality of the later groups who used the same name, and summarise what reliable sources say about it. It's too much of a simplification to assert that "the Ink Spots disbanded in 1954", without an explanation and qualification. Readers who saw a group that called itself the Ink Spots in, for example, the 1960s, will rightly want an explanation of how that situation developed, in the Ink Spots article. It's fine for us to "draw the line between original and non-original Ink Spots groups so as not to mislead", and to describe them as "imposters" so long as we justify that term by referring to reliable sources (like Goldberg) - but, without those explanations, your perspective can be seen as equally misleading and one-sided. Essentially, we need to set out the whole picture, let readers make their own minds up, and not try to lead them down a particular path. Incidentally, I've only reverted a tiny proportion of your edits, so please be aware that you and I are only a very small distance apart over this, and I greatly respect your knowledge and input. It's just a question of making sure that we use accurate and neutral terminology that is backed up by sources. Any disagreements that can't be resolved on article talk pages can be discussed at WP:NPOVN, or elsewhere on the site. Finally, please remember to use four of these: ~ so that your talk page postings are signed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015[edit]

Judith Chalmers[edit]

Hello, and thanks for the note. I'm idling at home, ill, came across that page, and thought I'd check. I'm sure the note I've put on is right, but I absolutely take your point about the house rules and will upclever myself forthwith (before I make any more blunders 😀) Many thanks, James. Zygoville (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


In edit , you reverted my revert of a known troll, Veryverser (talk · contribs). I was cleaning up some of his older "edits" after I saw he was active again.[3] This user is de facto banned, and per WP:DENY we don't engage them in dialogue. Therefore, I am removing the post, and your response, again. Please do not restore it. Cheers. Doc talk 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be based on your own personal opinion of who that editor might be. There was nothing contentious about that specific edit, and nothing contentious about my response to it. But it makes no big difference to me whether it remains on the talk page or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
He always signs his edits with "Veryverser" after the date stamp.[4], [5], etc.. He's indeffed for good reason; and there's no way you could have known it was him unless you had prior experience with him. I should have used an edit summary when reverting: definitely my bad there. Cheers ;) Doc talk 10:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015[edit]

Eddie Bo[edit]

You might like to take a quick look at this article. I have added references etc., in recent times, but there is a disparity between the main text and his discography over his early material. Also I do not know if the stated R&B chart placings are correct. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

It certainly needs a good makeover. I'm winding down at the moment prior to a few days away, but I'll bear it in mind..... For my own benefit (or yours, if I don't get round to it!), his "official" discography is here, and another (possibly better or more reliable one) is here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. I've tinkered with the discography using all of the cited sources (with some discretion), but without incorporating wikitables for presentation purposes. I think the article is in danger of being overloaded with discography stuff, whilst the actual text is not all that it might be. There are some similarities here, at this very point of reconstruction, with the then Rufus Thomas piece ! I will leave it alone now, assuming you may wish to have a go at some later stage. Enjoy your trip.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015[edit]

The Signpost: 05 August 2015[edit]

Psychedelic rock article[edit]

Within the article, it claims that the 13th Floor Elevators' album, The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators, was the first to use the term "psychedelic" in an album title. To my understanding, it was actually the lesser-known Philadelphia band the Deep, with their album Psychedelic Moods, who are credited with that distinction. I have sources, but I was wondering if you could back up this assertion or not because I wanted a second opinion before I could consider making an alteration to the article. Thanks.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's what I've heard too (the Elevators' LP, November 1966, and the Deep in October that year). I have a copy of the deluxe edition of the Elevators' disc at home and I'm sure it would give a definite date. I could check later tonight and report back you both tomorrow if you would like (I just hope that it has the month/date listed--I could could add that citation to the Elevators' Wiki articles and you could provide your source for the Deep--I'd imagine your source is really good). It would be interesting to see what Ghmyrtle thinks--he might even have something in a book (he probably has more books than Prospero!), but I'm sure the source you have would probably do just fine. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the precise release dates in October and November 1966, and I don't have those details. Perhaps they could be found in the Billboard archives. It would be interesting to know what development, specifically, led to three separate bands choosing to use the word "psychedelic" within a few weeks of each other in 1966 - given that the Holy Modal Rounders had used the word in their lyrics two whole years earlier, in 1964. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
PS: Lots of interesting material here.
Spring 1965: A band called the Psychedelic Rangers including future DOORS drummer John Densmore is formed in Los Angeles. This is the first known instance of a rock'n'roll band referring to themselves as "psychedelic".
September 1965: The local underground papers Rag Baby and the Berkeley Barb run ads promoting a performance of "psychedelic music" at the Intersection coffee house in San Francisco...
November 5, 1965:KIM FOWLEY places an ad in the LA Free Press, offering remaining copies of his "The Trip" 45. The 45 is referred to as having a "psychedelic sound"...
January, 1966: The words 'Psychedelic rock' appears on the 13th FLOOR ELEVATORS' business card. This is the first known use of the term.
February 10, 1966: A review of a 13th FLOOR ELEVATORS' live gig in a local newspaper bears heading "Unique Elevators Shine With 'Psychedelic Rock'". This is the first ever documented media reference to psychedelic rock music.
August, 1966: Rusty Evans & the DEEP record the "Psychedelic Moods" LP in Philadelphia. This is the first ever LP with a consistent psychedelic theme throughout.
October, 1966: The "Psychedelic Moods" LP by the DEEP released. The release date is uncertain, and it may have been later despite the recordings being completed in late August. Depending on the date, this may be the first LP with the word "psychedelic" in the title.
November 30, 1966: "Psychedelic Sounds" LP by the 13th FLOOR ELEVATORS released
Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think I came across this website when I was writing the Psychedelic Moods article. I'd need to go back to the information that I found, but most references estimate the point of release to be in October based on the album's catalog number and advertising. If I do make a change I'll be sure to explain the situation of the release dates, and the possibility that the Elevators' album could have still been the first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you would like, I can see if the deluxe edition of the Elevators' album has that definitive and specific date (as a point of meaningful comparison--if it would be any help). By the way, I am fascinated about some of the earliest uses of the term (i.e. Holy Modal Rounders, Densmore, Berkley Barb, etc.). If I could get some detailed (uber-detailed) source info. on those references, it would be nice. I am working on a psychedelic garage section for the G.R. article (see in my Sandbox 1) and, I am trying to go back and find the deep roots of psychedelic, whose fruition I understand to come about as the result of a longer pre-1966 development. This would all be very helpful to me, because I am currently immersed in this topic. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tennessee Waltz, composers.[edit]

Wiki credits Redd Stewart and PeeWee King as composers; however, the first recording was released by Cowboy Copas, with composers listed on the record as Copas/Stewart/King. I no longer have my aunt's 78, but, you can check Copas recording on Youtube with a 45 that also lists these composers. It has been my experience that the name listed first as composer was the originator. Copas version was the first released; that also adds to the argument. Thank you. Jawja100 Jawja100 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC) PS if you listed your instructions in plain English, it would be much more user friendly.

This is discussed here, and I suggest you join that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015[edit]

Gateway Protection Programme FAC[edit]

Hi. As someone who takes a keen interest in articles about the UK, I wondered if you might like to comment on the FAC discussion for Gateway Protection Programme? A previous discussion was archived due to a lack of participation, and I am keen to avoid the same happening again. Any thoughts you have on the article would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll have a quick look, though FAs (and GAs for that matter) are something I try to avoid being involved in! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghmyrtle. Don't feel obliged though, if you're not comfortable with it. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've done a very quick and minor copy-edit. Not really my area of expertise though (if I have one....). Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it all helps! Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Pebbles albums[edit]

This is being a little nitpicky, I know, but would it be ok to re-title some of the Pebbles albums that have "(LP)" with it? It would really help with wikilinks since I link them quite often, and it doesn't affect any other articles. By the way, I found another version of "I Had Too Much to Dream Last Night" by this group called Rasputin and the Mad Monks. To put it blatantly, it is really trippy!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes - amazing! - Not quite sure what you want to do with the Pebbles series - there's some inconsistency, but retitling the articles shouldn't be difficult. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, it's definitely an interesting take! I've enjoy all the renditions recorded by other bands, but the Electric Prunes's version will always be my favorite. As for the Pebbles series, I just want to rename the titles by removing the "(LP)" since it will save time in the long run. I'd like to get around to adding references to the articles too since I see that's an issue for some of them. I just like to make you aware as you've been involved in editing the series.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015[edit]

List of garage rock and psychedelic compilations has been deleted[edit]

I just noticed that the "List of garage rock and psychedelic compilations" article was deleted. [[6]] I just did an article about the Teenage Shutdown! (series), but saw the template saying it is "orphaned." Do you know of any sympathetic administrators that could have it re-habilitated, in its necessary role as a hub for our compilation articles? It is so unfortunate when such a vital resource falls to the hands of senseless deletionists--it has thrown an unnecessary spoke into our wheel. It makes no sense. What can we do? Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I realize that the old list had a lot of red-letter entries that did not include citations and not many blue-linked articles--any new list will have to be better. I have a re-constituted version of the list in my Sandbox #10, but I'll keep it there for a while and upgrade it a bit before re-submitting it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that AFD discussion, it seems that part of the problem was that the list was unreferenced, and appeared to combine albums in two distinct genres - garage rock and psychedelic rock. Of course, you and I know that the boundary between the two can be quite fuzzy and distorted (!) - but it may well be that the editors taking the decision to delete the list did not know that. The answer, I think, is to start a new article, List of garage rock compilation albums - which clearly focuses on that one genre while linking to others, and lists all the Nuggets, Pebbles, etc. etc. type albums that exist - with references from independent sources. It seems to me that there would be no good reason to delete such a list - especially if you can provide the references to show that such compilation albums themselves have played a noteworthy role in the establishment and recognition of garage rock as a genre in its own right. Of course, you could do the same thing for List of psychedelic rock compilation albums. And, I'm sure that if you asked Northamerica1000 (who deleted the original article) to undelete it so that further work could be done on it in a sandbox, they would provide it for you. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I should definitely ask him if he could. Perhaps it would be best to re-name the resurrected article: "List of garage rock compilations" (to avoid confusion about categorization of genres). But then, we could include compilations containing garage style psychedelic groups (i.e. the Deep, the Electric Prunes, the Humane Soiciety, etc. and of course lesser-known bands of their ilk). Then we could make sure that, for every compilation that doesn't have a blue-linked article, we could include a citation next its entry, as a way to ensure credibility (and maybe also use black letters rather an red). Over the next couple of months, I could work in my sandbox to source each non-article entry. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015[edit]

New Beacon School[edit]

Thanks for your comments. Having read the conflict the conflict of interest policy, I think that it is inappropriate for the school to be editing the New Beacon Article. It has a clear conflict of interest. What is your opinion on that? For your information, I have recently completed a six year academic research study in Switzerland on Child Sexual Abuse in the Traditional English Schools. The New Beacon School is a case study of secondary abuse, that is of spin being used to cover up and minimise the problem. Is it your advice that I should write a separate article on the problem of cover up of sexual abuse by English schools?

I am new to Wiki and it is not easy to find my way around but I hope to do so in due course. Any constructive guidance is welcomed. (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Replying at your talk page, to avoid any duplication. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for using your name. I am new to Wiki and just finding my way around. Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

the name Wessex[edit]

Dear Ghmyrtle, When I say that William Barnes appears to have created the name Wessex in 1869 modeling it on the English county names Essex and Sussex, what better reference do you need than the Oxford English Dictionary?

EgberhtEgberht (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be properly referenced. Where is this "Oxford English Dictionary online"? You need to provide a link. It seems to me that you are simply copying text, and claims, from this site - which is wholly unacceptable, especially if the claim cannot be referenced elsewhere. A fringe site claiming something is true does not make it true. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Wondering if this editor has any relationship to the site. Take a look at my reverts of hom. Doug Weller (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
in any case he's talking nonsense. My very large OED says the name was revived in the 19th century by Thomas Hardy for his novels, And my Oxford Names companion says it's 9th century West 19:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
And where exactly was this guy king of from from 519 to 534? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yup, as above. What the OED online currently says is this: "Wessex, n Etymology: Old English West Seaxe West Saxons (see West Saxon n. and adj.). 1. The name of a kingdom in south-west England in Anglo-Saxon times, used by Thomas Hardy as the name of the county in which his stories are set (corresponding approximately to Dorset, Somerset, Hampshire, and Wiltshire) and since used as a name for south-west England or this part of it." ... and then it mentions Barnes. After the bit where it says it's Old English. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page pedant)Thomas Hardy's Wessex in fact says this: ".. the boundaries had extended to include all of Dorset, Wiltshire, Somerset, Devon, Hampshire, much of Berkshire, and some of Oxfordshire, with its most north-easterly point being Oxford (renamed "Christminster" in the novel). Cornwall was also referred to but named "Off Wessex"." But then, he was a bit inventive, wasn't he. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

Assuming that Boscaswell or AusLondonder don't come up with any reasons as to why the "Responses" section shouldn't be moved into the leadership article, do you think that the layout I suggested for it in my sandbox User:Absolutelypuremilk/sandbox is a good one or do you have any ideas for improvement? I'll move it tomorrow if I don't hear back from them Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

European migrant crisis[edit]

(Undid revision 678973833 by Phecda: No consensus for this - sources indicate there are many refugees, but also many other migrants)

Not sure what you mean.

Shouldn't we keep the two new sources you removed? At least in the "political debate" section of the article?

"Phecda (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)"

Possibly, but only as sources in support of the statements in those articles - not your suggested synthesis of what they are saying. Just because two sources make an argument, we can't say: "It is now more likely to be called a refugee crisis." "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It would be best to continue the discussion on this matter at the article talk page - not my own talk page. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry about using your talk page. "Phecda (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)"