User talk:Morag Kerr

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Morag Kerr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! TNXMan 13:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I figured how to sign the messages, but I'll take some time to read the rest. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have edited articles before, most notably Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky, the biography of Prokofiev and an article on fan fiction - just in case you thought this was a single-purpose account. I notice that my mother's name is a "dead link" in some music articles that refer to her opera singing career, so someday I'll do a short biography of her to fill that gap. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Morag,

Nice to hear from you. I'm rather less active than I was having got pissed off with a prominent Wikipedian with the initials JW.

The article seems basically fine. About a year ago Wikipedia went through a big argument about unreferenced articles. The compromise was that new biographies of living people should be referenced. VdT has done a quick search and found three references for you which means that the article has got through the basic requirement.

As far as more thorough referencing is concerned, Wikipedia favours secondary sources over primary as it aims to reflect established research rather than create its own. Your mother's hand-annotated scores will be very useful for academic researchers. Wikipedia tends to prefer things pre-digested. You mention having some programme books. I have used some as sources for articles on operas whose premieres I've seen at ENO or WNO. So, if there is stuff in one of these about how Ben B. wrote parts or made them Scottish with your Mum in mind, that will be fine.

If you are not sure how to insert a reference, you could provide the information in Chicago format and ask for someone to help. For basic referencing, you can use the tags ref and /ref in angled brackets at the start and end of the reference which you insert inliner in the text. It gets more complicated if you reuse the reference, but that's a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter! Thanks for getting back to me. It was good of Voceditenore to find these three references. I think the links I posted might have utility in that respect too, perhaps. I'm not that concerned about referencing the career details because I know that information is out there somewhere, even if in old magazines and programmes (well, maybe not the bit about Ben starting to write Polly for her, that's referenced by a letter she received from Ben's secretary while she was on holiday telling her about the change of plan). Some of it is a question of how do you reference an old programme, or a magazine cutting, or the Radio Times? It's a dilemma though, because this is a small corner of not very much, and some of these details aren't going to find anyone who wants to "research" them for a more official publication. A soprano whose career lasted only five years, who never did the big blockbuster roles - even the Britten experts will probably be underwhelmed. Where else might they see the light of day, I wonder?

I'm more concerned about the biographical details. How do I reference where she was born and when, and who her family were? Her early life, too. I did the academic record referring to her college diplomas, presumably these are recorded somewhere, but how can they be referenced? I've also got programmes for Scottish performances of Messiah, Creation, Elijah and so on, but that's pretty parochial. And her later and present life - do they want a marriage announcement, or a link to the electoral roll or what? Morag Kerr (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm now getting a load of stuff related about other operatic roles (Queen of the Night, Michaela) and concert performances including the German Requiem, The B Minor Mass, St Matthew Passion (with Peter Pears as the Evangelist), and there's a big box of programmes and cuttings upstairs I probably need to dig out. Worked with Norman del Mar on some stuff - Zerbinetta, Mahler's fourth.... Might be worth a sentence if I can find the documentation. Morag Kerr (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Peter. I just got hold of a copy of the memoirs of Elisabeth Parry, a mate of Mum's from the EOG days, and all the stuff about Polly being written for Mum and then Ben changing his mind is in there. And a fair bit more. In fact Elisabeth is wrong about Mum's relationship with her teacher, Madame de Reusz - Mum absolutely idolised Madame, and I have been aware of that since I was about five. The mantra according to Madame de Reusz was (and is) the mainstay of singing lessons. I recall a conversation between Mum and Elisabeth some years ago, in which Elisabeth was quite disparaging about Madame. I think she herself didn't get on with Madame, and is projecting quite a lot. Anyway, most of the rest of Elisabeth's book seems to check out, up to and including the trip on the Great Wheel at the Tivoli Gardens. Morag Kerr (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anne Sharp

Hello! Your submission of Anne Sharp at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you see, a tentative approval in good faith (AGF). Wanted: some more sourcing of paragraphes. I was advised to quote thinks like program books by using the template cite book, for example:

*2003 Handel: ''[[Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate]]'', Katia Plaschka, Antichi Strumenti, in the [[Unionskirche]]<ref>{{cite book |title=Georg Friedrich Händel Utrechter Te Deum Utrechter Jubilate |date=29 June 2003}}</ref>, perhaps that helps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will have to dig out some programme books. I have another source, as one of her mates published her memoirs last year and there's quite a bit of relevant stuff in it. (The mate doesn't have her own wiki page, which I suppose I should do something about!) Morag Kerr (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the question on DYK regarding International Women's Day? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep clicking on the above link. If it gets you to the top of that page, click to "Queue" in the box and look for her name, I should have mentioned that. Should appear 8 March!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I trawled all over the place and couldn't find the right page.

I'm stuck on referencing the early life/education part. She's not notable enough to have a biography, and as she ain't dead yet there's no obituary. I can't find anything referencable - just original birth certificates and diploma certificates and stuff which won't do it. Her college doesn't have lists of alumni, or even of prizewinners, or at least not online. I might be able to get that obscure genealogy site where I found details of marriage/husband to add at least a date and place of birth, if that would help. Morag Kerr (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

She is fine, imo. Great that she is not dead! - In order to search, did you use the tool in the left bar Toolbox "What links here?"? Did you know that in a typical browser you can press "Ctrl" and the letter F at the same and get a search function for the page you are on? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I tried the Ctrl-F thing, but it was finding the page that was the problem. I didn't know about the "What links here?" function! Morag Kerr (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is the same page, Special occasions at the bottom. Sorry about the pic, I had a similar problem with Ignace Michiels. - I found a new source about the Melos Ensemble recordings, met Albert Herring there as well. Feel free to add to the players, I just started Ivor McMahon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know what I was smoking, then! :) I like your Ignace Michiels picture, indeed. Unfortunately I'd need a time machine to do the same thing you did. This article does not need a picture of a white-haired (very) old lady at the top! I've just scanned a cracker of a picture of the final tableau of The Little Sweep, far better pic than the one online (except my mother's hand is right in front of Elisabeth Parry's face and I don't think Elisabeth has forgiven her yet for that one!). I'd love to put it up to illustrate the article on the opera itself, which I'm currently re-editing with a hatchet, but I'm very unsure of the copyright situation. I've also got no less than four (maybe five) versions of the first-half play that I can't sort out and my mother isn't sure which was the première version - I may have to phone Elisabeth on this, because she's the only other one in the cast who's still alive. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Good to know! - But the Ignace pic was not mine, I found it on the nl WP. I like it, and it was already in the queue, when someone questioned the watermark on it. I should have been more careful about yours, but like it so much that I wanted to try. - To include a picture to a given DYK, click edit to one which has a pic, copy the relevant section from div to /div, insert on top of yours and modify, and don't forget to copy the italic (pictured) to the hook. Thanks for the spelling catch at the B minor, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Now in prep, which will eventually be moved to a queue on that same page, then you can see in the timetable the time when it will appear. - Do you happen to know anything about Peter Graeme, another Albert Herring player, or his teacher - like where he taught? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that's nice! I like the Anna Murray-Douglas article also featured. That one is just fascinating. I'll ask my mother about Peter Graeme, but he's not someone I've heard her mention. If he was involved in the 1960s, that's likely to be after her time. Morag Kerr (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Q1, comfortable London time 10 am for 8 hours, if I read the table right, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Her photo has been zapped

The file was deleted, by Explicit, and with the explanation "F7: Violates non-free content criteria". Which one? Explicit didn't deign to make this explicit, but I presume that it's the fourth, "Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia." -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This seems perverse. The photo was used in theatre programmes - you know, the little biographies of the cast they put at the end. I thought I said that. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know how this works. How can I appeal this decision? I thought I had done everything necessary for the photo to be acceptable, and it's quite disconcerting that it just disappears without any explanation. How would anyone else like it if I just went around deleting images because I felt like it? Morag Kerr (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Morag, I've replied to your question on Hoary's talk page, as to which license option you need to use to get that type of box which you posted on the talk page. I hope this does the trick for you. (Note though that I am not an image copyright expert.) Best, --JN466 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be OK now, as I've taken advice, and also copied (with suitable amendments) the justification that Voceditenore used for a fairly similar photo of Nancy Evans. Morag Kerr (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gimp

Have you tried (the Gimp? That's what I used to adjust the photo:

• Clicked Alt-cc (for "Colors|Curves" or similar).
• Observed that the straight-line graph went rightwards beyond any point at which the histogram went above zero (which wasn't a surprise, as no white area was visible in the photo); pushed the rightmost point of the line horizontally leftwards, to a point at, or just to the right of, the rightmost sign of life in the histogram.
• This was an improvement, but the result still looked a bit murky. Pushed the middle of the graph up a bit (thereby making it convex), to keep the lightest and darkest extremes more or less as they were but to lighten the mid-tones.
• Saved.

In all, about fifteen seconds' work. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ooh, I'm impressed! I'll give it a shot, but as far as I can see you've cracked the present issue anyway. Thanks a lot. (I began to think, should I have held on to this article until I had it more advanced, looked out more references and so on? But then, look at all the help I've been given and the nice people who have taken an interest. That wouldn't have happened if Id just played in a sandbox.) Next project, the wrongly-titled article The Little Sweep. I can do a lot to that. Morag Kerr (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anne Sharp

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! She also appears on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's really nice! Had a slight drama today because a nurse visiting yesterday blurted out something completely brain-dead to her, and I had to spend half an hour on the phone to her doctor trying to get it all straightened out. (No she does not have a myeloma, the nurse was just asked to take a test for that to complete the work-up of a chronic anaemia, and should never have said the m-word.) Anyway, now the entire medical practice (including a doctor who is an accomplished musician) knows about the wiki feature. Morag Kerr (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Addio, addio

I've replied to your question at Talk:Orfeo ed Euridice. --GuillaumeTell 17:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (SNP)

Thanks for the thanks. 100,000 is back with a Huffington Post ref. Suspect HP is quoting the WP 100,000 figure! Circular citation. However I won't revert it as tomorrow's Tweet will probably change it anyway. Keomike (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted it. I saw the tweets about the HP article, and their number is definitely wrong. As you say, we'll see what Peter Murrell says today. I can't understand why some people are so invested in propagating a mistaken figure. 76,688 is astonishing in itself. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Funny old wikiworld

Hi Morag. Thanks for the edit to the Lockerbie conspiracy page. I haven't ventured down that particular rabbit-hole for a little while, but am aware of your excellent work in that field. I see you've been accused of being SlimVirgin! After I wrote his bio, I was accused of both having a grudge against, and being, Stu Campbell! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, yes, I think it was Patrick Haseldine who decided I was SlimVirgin. He is of course absolutely stark staring bonkers. He maintains a WikiSpooks page on me that I just ignore though I see it coming up on Google from time to time. It's probably actionable but you know what they say, never sue a man of straw.

I was quite disturbed by how inaccurate and how out of date the Pan Am 103 pages I looked at are. I hadn't gone near them because I didn't want to get into an edit war, but it almost looks as if people have given up entirely. Stacks of really old stuff I haven't seen out in public in years, and a lot of new stuff simply not there at all. The whole damn thing needs a complete re-vamp, but if I did it I'd be accused of bias. I did kill the bit about the radio transmission triggering the bomb because it's demonstrable nonsense and it's not really worth the space to detail the claim and then debunk it. I suppose I'll have to debunk it if someone insists on putting it back.

Then pretty much the first thing I did to the main page, removing a reference to a newspaper article that was clearly wrong, was promptly reverted by someone, saying "why is this article wrong?" Well if he'd read the detailed explanation I put on the talk page he might have had his answer!

What's going on with the McTernan thing anyway? Stuart's article on McTernan's abysmal prediction record is meticulously sourced and nobody has produced any comparable list of predictions he got right to counter it and support the suggestions of cherry-picking. But Black Kite just repeats calls for a reliable source. In what way is the Wings article not reliable? Morag Kerr (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you are okay to attempt a revamp of the Lockerbie articles as it's clearly a subject with which you are familiar, certainly more than most (SV excluded!). If you want to reference your own book, it might be better to bring it up on a talkpage first.

Re Wings, I just added a (hopefully final) response at the BLP noticeboard. I read Wings and have followed Stu's career since 1992, in fact, he was something of a childhood hero of mine. I can assure you, the reasons for the removal are not based in any anti-Wings sentiment, it's more of an attempt to hold the BLPs here to a high standard of sourcing, especially when it comes to negative statments, of which McTernan's already has its fair share. You can perhaps imagine what an article about Stu sourced from certain cherry-picked outlets might look like (anyone remember Wangs over Skintland?), or indeed how an article on your good self might read were it sourced to Haseldine! --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

We may simply have to disagree about Wings and McTernan. If you can demand that a source be dismissed merely on an assertion of possible cherrypicking, without any evidence whatsoever of actual cherrypicking having come to light despite much argument, I think you yourself are departing from the high standard expected here. You haven't even tried to find counter-examples of correct predictions, you're merely sitting on your ivory tower claiming it's a possibility! It would be a pretty simple matter to deconstruct and debunk everything that's in that Ergasiophobe blog, or Haseldine's nonsense, factually and with references. And I hope that is what would be done if they were referened here, rather than relying on bald assertions of possible (though entirely unproven) bias. Here, you seem to be saying that since an author has gone to the trouble of amassing and publishing factual evidence, that should be ignored because the author has formed an opinion as a result of the evidence uncovered. That would disallow any reference to my own work on Lockerbie too, it would seem.

And this is why I seldom edit Wikipedia. Life is too short for these pointless quibbles, arguing late into the night with people with an obvious agenda who hide behind spurious claims of impartiality. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I never said Wings should be dismissed out of hand. Personally, I think it far more reliable than most MSM, I would just be more comfortable in labelling someone incompetent if other sources mentioned it too; with negative statements it's preferrable to have multiple sources. Over the years I've just seen countless examples of wikipedia being used to defame people and further grudges which has made me something of a hardliner when it comes to be BLPs, that is my agenda. I do see where you're coming from and know it can be frustrating here. Believe me, I have no love for McTernan, and perhaps by trying to act impartially I'm letting him off the hook; I did a quick search to try and find other predictions McT got right and to be honest just found more wrong, like with May's council elections where he bandies around figures of 120 to 220 Labour losses. Anyway, I'm going to let that article be now, politics is not my primary focus here, the world of illuminated manuscripts seems to throw up less of these pointless quibbles.

Regarding your book, I don't see a problem with using it here, as it has received attention from reliable outlets. I would order a copy but money is a bit tight (very high upkeep costs with ivory towers these days). Some people get funny when authors cite their own work and there's probably a ruling on it somewhere, but I don't mind - it's always nice to have an expert around. Kind regards. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was a bit snippy last night but this is what riles me about Wikipedia. People who pitch up insisting that their point of view is the last word on the subject, although there's no real way to find out who has authority and who hasn't in the anarchic world of Wiki editing. I believe you are confusing fact and opinion here. It's a simple fact that McTernan has made at least 13 confident predictions of political outcomes which turned out to be wrong and nobody has been able to find a comparable set of predictions he's got right. Declaring that this fact, which seems interesting and relevant, shouldn't be included because of the identity of the person who publicised it is the very definition of argumentum ad hominem. What makes your opinion on this better than the opinions of others who disagree with you?

I actually came to argue the point because it's something that interests me about Wikipedia. The denigration of genuinely informed sources because that source is a person who has an opinion. If the material is independently verified and referenced then the opinion of the person who publishes it doesn't detract from its truth. Except that in certain corners of Wikipedia, it does. I fear being on the wrong end of that, with the result that I waste a lot of time and effort on sorting out the Lockerbie pages only to have someone revert everything on the grounds that "she believes the bomb didn't come from Malta". Well, duh. It's the same here. You're rejecting the Wings article because Campbell believes McTernan is a lousy prophet - but he believes McTernan is a lousy prophet precisely because of the factual evidence he has presented! It's getting to the point where espousing the obvious conclusion from the facts you have researched is enough to get you barred as being biassed. And I'm sorry, but you can't dismiss the article as "possibly cherry-picked" unless you provide at least a shred of evidence to support that possibility. If this were a matter of opinion I'd agree with you, but it's not. McTernan's record speaks for itself irrespective of who has gathered the individual instances together. Morag Kerr (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never been totally against mentioning all this - saying repeatedly that I believe Wings to be factually accurate, and that I'm not averse to using it as a source. The original edits however were way too overdetailed, and after a lot of back-and-forth I figured it best to clear all the material as a precautionary measure, until either some kind of consensus formed or further developments took place. There's no harm in waiting a while before making the changes. I believe in taking a very careful approach to BLPs, particularly those politically-related; I may have acted reflexively in seeing Wings used to smear McTernan, but I hope you can understand why it might cause some rasied eyebrows. Admittedly, cherry-picking doesn't seem to be an issue here, but that sort of thig is worth considering in a case like this. I was only *just* in favour of removing the material, and only until other sources could be found to demonstrate notability (admittedly again, it's his job so I suppose it's inherently notable).

As well as starting Stu's bio, I spent a while researching in order to sway the Wee Blue Book deletion discussion, and as I said, some suspected me of being Stu, so maybe in my desire to appear disinterested, I acted over-cautiously here. You are right to bemoan the lack of a proper authority here, it can sometimes be a case of who shouts loudest and longest, or who has enough friends to back them up, or often things can be decided on the whim of whichever passing admin happens to wander by. It's a shoddy system. I agree with a lot of what you and Anna have being saying, and am prepared to support a mention of this in McTernan's article, provided the wording and sourcing is agreed upon beforehand and some sort of compromise can be reached.

As far as Lockerbie goes, I haven't even read Wikipedia's main article on it yet, but am sorry if you've had trouble in the past. It's going on my watchlist along with the related articles, so perhaps I'll be able to help you out if it happens again. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 21:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've never actually tried to edit the McTernan page; my concern isn't with the page as such but with the principle of rejecting a fact-based and referenced source because the author has an opinion. I know what you mean about too much detail and I see that as a problem in the Pan Am 103 pages as well. People want to put in every wrinkle they're aware of and it's not always appropriate. I also question if Stu suing McTernan is worth including, at least not until and unless he actually gets a judgement in his favour. But the basic issue of whether his abysmal record of political predictions should be included seems to me to be a no-brainer. It's pretty much a meme in the pro-independence campaign in Scotland, to the point where his prediction the other day that there wouldn't be a second independence referendum was greeted with whoops of joy all round! Saying it shouldn't go in because the only place where all the instances are collected together is a page written by someone who believes his predictive ability is laughably wrong, and anyway these instances might be cherry-picked (though we don't have to provide evidence for that) really doesn't come over as neutral to me.

I haven't really had trouble myself because (with one thankfully deleted exception) I've never tried to edit a controversial page. A little bit of musicology is my usual thing, working in some tiny niches I happen to have some expertise in. But I've seen what happened to friends who tried to contribute to the complementary/alternative medicine debate. They were fighting both the scammers who wanted Wiki to validate their worthless "treatments" and a bunch of self-righteous pricks who objected to every observation that homoeopathic remedies are physiologically inactive as violating "neutral point of view". There are so many badly-designed agenda-driven articles out there, anyone can find a citation for practically anything they want to declare. I don't know how many hours of people's productive lives were wasted on pointless argy-bargy on talk pages late into the night. Even the BBC and other mainstream media now recognise to some extent that their false idea of "balance" (give the same weight to one lunatic with a whacky idea as they do to 99.9% of the medical and scientific profession who are trying to point out that the idea is whacky) has caused a lot of harm, especially with their promotion of Andrew Wakefield. But it seems as if within Wikipedia the crazy impossible claim still has to be given equal weight with actual science, and if the people promoting the actual science get on the wrong side of the in clique even being right won't protect them. So I see all this and think, it's not worth it. A nice wee page on "Let's Make An Opera" would be better. Morag Kerr (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

To get back to the Lockerbie thing, I'd like to see decent articles on this, but there are quite a few pages involved and in general complete re-writes are needed rather than tinkering. The pages have grown like Topsy over the years, much of the stuff near the top is thoroughly out of date and newer stuff has been added piecemeal at the bottom if at all. Some points that are virtually irrelevant are delved into in tedious and sometimes semi-literate detail, while important things don't even get a mention. I'm not sure I'm up for it at all, and I'm even less sure when I realise that even if I did it, anyone with an agenda could simply come along and delete the lot.

It's not particularly about referencing my own book, as that is only the primary reference for a single issue - the location of the bomb suitcase in the baggage container. In my opinion this is the central issue of the case as it stands, as recognising the correct position leads to the realisation that the entire investigation was up a gum tree from about day nine and the eventual police theory of the bomb coming from Malta was itself a giant conspiracy theory which was wholly untrue. But it's still only a single point. Everything else that needs said is referencable to multiple other sources and in particular to the trial transcripts themselves and John Ashton's invaluable work. It's the amount of work that's daunting, topped by the thought of getting drawn into sterile pointless late-night arguments with people who have an agenda but pretend they haven't, and who try to pull some sort of nebulous Wikipedia rank.

I have resisted going near the pages for a long time for all these reasons, but I know that Wikipedia is the first port of call for many people looking into a new subject for the first time and the Pan Am 103 pages are doing that group of people a grave disservice. There really should be better material for them to access. It's just - oh God, spare me!

Maybe we should get SlimVirgin to do it. That might set a few cats among the pigeons! (She was sincerely commended for her work on the page about the murder of Meredith Kercher, I know that.)

(By the way, I think my book is only £3.75 as an eBook. Or if you show up to one of my infrequent free presentations about it, you can have a print copy for £10.) Morag Kerr (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I just went and looked at the articles on Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. Despite this affair probably surpassing Lockerbie in complexity and sheer adversarial venom, the articles are models of clarity and informativeness. If this is a result of SlimVirgin's work, I take my hat off to her. I'd love to see the Pan Am 103 articles in that condition. Sigh. Morag Kerr (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Slim's work here has been commendable as far as I can see, though that is still probably considered a heresy by many seasoned wiki-critics. Your thoughts about the madness and futility of contributing here made me chuckle, I think much the same thing most days and I expect a lot of other people do too. The site is an utter, utter mess, an inherently stupid concept in so many ways, yet it still attract so many readers...Blame google! Occasionally I set my heart on a total revamp of a biggie like the Ancient Olympics or something, but as you say, it's far more enjoyable to find a nice wee corner and potter away on something you love. Apologies if I was coming over high-handedly or whatever, the day-to-day lunatic mobocracy of this place means an attitude easily becomes ingrained. Good luck out there. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 00:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Her connection with the Pan Am 103 affair is a bit nebulous but as far as I remember she claimed her fiance was killed on the plane, but the family of the lad in question denied all knowledge. Could have been a secret affair, or a clandestine unrequited crush, but people speculated she was a security services plant in the group of bereaved family members. Of course, Patrick Haseldine believes I work for MI5 so we know how seriously to take that sort of stuff. I don't know whether she has kept up with the case or not. I was just struck when I came across her name in a conversation about the Meredith Kercher wiki page being rescued and everything sorted out, and I laughed and said, don't you know she's me?

I think this place almost forces people to adopt a high-handed attitude, because otherwise they find themselves on the bottom of the heap the whole time. When everyone is equal, he who shouts loudest and comes over most domineering will win every time. Just look at the arrogant way Black Kite is behaving on the McTernan page - but it works. He's managing to dominate the discussion by accusing everyone else of bias and agenda-running. Par for the course. Morag Kerr (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)