User talk:Molly Romanov

Welcome!

Hello, Molly Romanov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 22:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The county town of Sussex is not quite so straightfoward. Assizes were held in both Chichester and Lewes, and the county town swapped between them several times. I don't have the details on this though. Jooler 10:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no documentary evidence to hand, but based my amendment on:

• I have lived in Lewes since 1978, been married to a Town and District Councillor (same person!) and served as Mayoress for a year, during which time I have frequently heard Lewes referred to as the County Town of Sussex and never heard anyone take issue with the assertion;

• The entry for the Traditional County of Sussex already shows the County Town as Lewes.

--Molly Mockford 11:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I collect old Pears Cyclopaedias. I'm just pulling a few editions of the shelf as we speak. The 1898 edition shows the county town of Sussex as Chichester, as does the 1927 edition. .... okay the county town is shown as Chichester up until 1935/1936; the next edition I have is 1939 and the county town is shown as Lewes. I don't have any further details. Jooler 14:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the article on County_towns says "Chichester (also Lewes)" for the traditional county of Sussex. Jooler 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks as though we have an imbalance between County_Towns, Sussex and Lewes (Chichester doesn't mention the subject). I'm new to this - how do we go about rationalising the entries? --Molly Mockford 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's establish the facts first. I am quite confused. The 1911 Britannica ([1]) gives Lewes as the county town, but the [Pears Cyclopaedia]] gives Chichester from 1898 (the first publication) through to 1935/6. I find it hard to believe that this book was published with such an error for over 40 editions, but I have no other evidence to suggest that Chichester was the county town at any time, other than a vaguely remembered discussion a few years ago with someone who was talking about the assizes being shared between Lewes and Chichester. I would guess you are probably in a better position to get a definitive answer. User:Rbrwr made the change to the county town page and first created the list on the talk page with this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACounty_town&diff=1231995&oldid=1231846). So I'll ask him if he remembers where he obtained the list from, although it was in 2003 when this edit was made. Jooler 22:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I don't remember. I'm sure I compiled the list offline from various sources, including County Council websites, a 1980s Whittaker's Alamanac (mainly for the 1974 counties), and the results of a lot of Googling, but I couldn't tell you the origin of any particular item on the list. I did describe it as "provisional"... Sorry. --rbrwr^± 23:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had a thought. Since Lewes was indeed the County Town, and it seems that Chichester was too, and Googling has led me to discover that Horsham also was for a time: how about amending the wording from "It is the County Town of the Traditional County of Sussex" to "It served its turn as the County Town of the Traditional County of Sussex"? It doesn't solve the problem of what to put on the Sussex page, but I think the entry would not be inaccurate for Lewes.--Molly Mockford 16:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any advice on how to deal with Will Karr re-amending the Lewes page to add back in text which you agreed was not relevant and also opinion. Tempted just to revert?Rob at Pells (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get elected President of Cliffe then. BTW I didn't get a mug or whatever for doing the ale trail. They shut up shop before I made it back to the portcullis. Jooler 16:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! No, I came a worthy second. The hustings were huge fun, and a friend videoed it and presented me with a DVD of all the speeches, from which it is patently clear that I ought to have won. I am considering a challenge in the courts. :-)

Glad you had a good day - sorry about the mug!

--Molly Mockford 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what's the problem with that sentence exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, your quick lesson in English, logic, sub-editing and relevance has been duly digested, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you excised the additions I made to Little Sark? The edit summary you left doesn't relate to what I had added at all. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was to add a citation request to the final sentence, because I have never come across any distinct version of Serquiaise in Little Sark compared to the main island. I certainly didn't delete anything! Now that I look at the article again, it seems that chunks of it have indeed been deleted - but that wasn't my doing. Very puzzled! Feel free to revert those deletions, because I have no idea how they arose.--Molly Mockford (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those fixes (nbsp to ndash) of my slips on Henry Allingham. One goes a bit word-blind after subbing for a while, and even after previewing etc. it is easy to miss these things.

Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference you added because it was the exact same reference that was used in the following sentence. The {{fact}} tag should not have been there in the first place. Thanks for improving the article anyway. Hopefully there won't be too much work to do for GA status, after which, FA should be aimed for. Mjroots (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope we could get it there! Henry deserves it... --Molly Mockford (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Given the advice from various organisation about non-locals attending, Do you know anyone in the area that would be willing to cover the Fifth for Wikinews?.

21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It would take more than one person to cover the entirety of Lewes Bonfire Night! There are six separate Bonfire Societys, each of which holds its own procession and has its own firesite and fireworks, and in order to assemble a full report the local papers send a different reporter and photographer to cover each one.

I'm not well up on how WikiNews works, but I would have thought that a pretty good article could be based on the report which will appear in the Sussex Express (see http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/); they are more experienced, and more likely to be accurate, than the Brighton Evening Argus. And if WikiNews, like Wikipedia, demands citations to published sources, the Sussex Express is going to be very much your best bet.

I myself am involved with the Cliffe Bonfire Society, and I freely admit that I wouldn't really be able to write a news story on the details of how my own Society's evening went, without talking to the other members the next day, let alone provide any information about the other Societies' celebrations; there is so much which goes on!

--Molly Mockford (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Molly Romanov. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Molly Romanov. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Molly Romanov. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know anything about how Dick is doing? http://dickgaughan.co.uk/ is gone, and there is no update on https://stoneyport.biz/dick-gaughan I hope he can enjoy some quality of life, even when he is no longer able to perform.

But it is strange that he seems to have completely vanished from the news. I don't think that there has been any deliberate decision to keep his condition secret as in the case of Michael Schumacher, or has there? --Johannes Rohr (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johannes - I think I remember your name. Didn't Dick tend to visit you when he was touring Germany? I am afraid that I know very little more than you do. Sadly, when Dick had his stroke and withdrew from performing, he also dropped contact with many of his close friends, including me. My e-mails were not answered, and so I did not telephone him because I felt that would be an intrusion, and if he ever wanted to be in touch with me he would do so. The last I heard, he was physically fit, not using a stick or anything like that, but of course no longer able to play, or sing, to the standard he had always set. The last photo I saw of him showed him grinning happily behind a well-grown beard! But that was some years ago. I am sorry I have no other information to offer. [[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Molly! No, Dick doesn't know me. I am just a fan who adores his work. I have some connections in the German folk scene, but nobody I asked had any more info. And sure, he has left us with more than enough legacy for a single lifetime, so if he is not incapacited and is able to enjoy his life, that would totally fine. Actually, there is a certain dignity do leaving the stage while you still can, which he apparently did. I just thought of him because I visited Glasgow for COP26, and I thought that if he had been able to, he certainly would have performed at one of the protests there. His voice would have been a great addition, even if he had just spoken instead of performing. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I hear anything more, I'll let you know. [[User:Molly Romanov|Molly Romanov]] (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]