Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 4

753:"I still had a few grains of sense left. I’d not come all this way to skip the furthest cities of my adventure. But I was keen to reach Hawaii, and I did. I booked into the YMCA (my cash was running low – I’d spent more than enough keeping up with the stars), collected my new tape and music papers from the local Thomas Cook office, and phoned Brian Epstein at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. “I’m on the beach,” he said. “Come on over.” I arrived, breathless and excited. He shook my hand, spotted what was under my arm and grabbed the music papers. “Fantastic,” he said. “I’ve been missing these like crazy!” He combed the New Musical Express and chatted to me for hours, giving me advice on who to avoid and who to trust, and telling me to visit Tommy Lipuma (a Los Angeles friend of his) when I hit California and Dick James (the Beatles’ publisher) when I got back to London. He listened, with interest, to my tales of my first release ‘Gotta Tell’ and to my account of my experiences with Joe Meek. “You should keep well away from Joe Meek,” he said." Since both 2258:

Brilliant! He could have raped me on the spot and I’d have thanked him profusely! His song was appalling – but, then, so was mine. I, of course, thought it was fantastic." and "We left to go home and prepare for the call to stardom. It never came. The songs were never released. My phone calls were politely brushed aside. Joe had obviously decided they weren’t that great. He was right, but there were kinder ways to let a kid down. Bluntness was not his way." King tells a less detailed version of this in the Arena documentary. So although King says that he was recorded by Meek, he also says that the songs were never released, which is why there is no record of it in reliable sources. Like other things raised on the talk page in the past, this comes back to material sourced to King.--

2672:, where she wrote "I told him from the outset that I was not going to write 'Free The JK One'. I believe he is guilty and quite rightly in prison. But I do think it's legitimate to worry about how he got there, when it seems that the whole case was an unholy stitch-up between the police and the tabloids." Like Lynn Barber, I do have some concerns about the trial and the refusal to allow an appeal in 2003, but that is the way it is. Overall, the Knowledge article is a good deal fairer and more detailed than the usual coverage of the case in the UK tabloids.-- 3104:

Knowledge continue to carry the press, police and court lies about Hillsborough until the Coroner finally found the truth? What are the rules regarding truth? Do we Wikipedians regard courts as always getting it right? Or should we reflect loudly proclaimed doubts and evidence to the contrary? Take the CCRC (above). Is their decision to be respected above Bob Woffinden's? And is Elton John still standing or sitting down whilst any court considers his privacy?

31: 1660:. Simon Bates says at the start of the show that there are problems (a strike, so there were no live acts on the show that week) so JK was asked on and he brought back a Rubik's cube. King says that "as a direct result they became very popular later in the decade." This is something of a bold claim, although it may have been an early appearance on the television for the cube.-- 3541: 2910:, JK2006 (the man himself) comments: "Incidentally for anybody wondering why the CCRC (Criminal Case Review Commission) explained why they did not refer my case to the Court of Appeal, they said it is not when something happened but whether which matters. In a case where ONE SECOND was the difference between a serious crime (aged 15) or no crime at all (aged 16)." 3542:

https://books.google.fr/books?id=-ycEAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA51&lpg=RA1-PA51&dq=record+producer+of+year+1971+music+week&source=bl&ots=6OiKhHrFWo&sig=Xg26ADBlrR2y569UynYb8K21ZHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidr6CNt6TNAhVK6xoKHXK-Bp4Q6AEINjAF#v=onepage&q=record%20producer%20of%20year%201971%20music%20week&f=false

1196:

is being considered'. Furthermore any prisoner released on parole is unlikely to achieve that release (certainly on first application) without admitting their crimes and agreeing some sort of plan to prevent re-offending. This is particularly true of those found guilty of sex offences against young children.

1079:

to have returned to it for the first time in months to find the most obvious canards ('he ran Decca Records', and 'his appeal is being considered by the European Court of Human Rights') removed and the article seemingly rewritten in a far more accurate and appropriate style. Well done chaps, nice work.

1113:, which says " In 2007 the European Court of Human Rights accepted his submission that, by changing the dates on the charges after his defence had been completed, his conviction was unsafe. The Court is still considering his evidence." However, I could not find any reference to this in a search on the 3153:

A good point (and Leslie) but to be honest I'm not too bothered in the careers of celebs or others; it is more - what is the point of Knowledge unless it can reflect and illustrate the truth and reality as it happens. As with Hillsborough, the outcry against the behaviour of the police and media has,

2836:

runs very deep. As you say above it seems quite common and surely not only here that observers wonder how many victims get dates wrong and other evidence wrong too. From the article it appears large sums of money were involved. Wonder if any of the police stories about Hillsborough were paid for too?

2577:

and that appears to have been the end of the matter as far as the English courts were concerned. The case has never been heard in Europe, although King may have applied to do this. King has denied that some of the boys were 14 or 15 at the time, but has also said that the allegations against him were

2472:

I also fail to see what you mean by "he would, wouldn't he"... stating he claims his innocence (which he does) is not an endorsement. The reader will reach their own opinion on the matter. It is not up to Knowledge to exclude such information because people (me included) doubt he is telling the truth

1195:

There is no record whatsoever of it being listed for hearing at ECHR (records are available to the public online), nor any such listing taking place, nor any orders or judgement from any hearing. More likely someone filled in the ECHR Application form and sent it off, then nuanced this into 'his case

945:

Yes, I've noticed that in the last few months there's been a sporadic increase in SPAs making small changes "improving" the article from JK's perspective (often on longstanding themes) and now that seems to be joined by IPs from the "other side". I don't know if one activity provokes the other but it

668:

One is a claim by the subject himself. And lets not forget all the other claims that have been removed from the article as there is never any proof. The next says he produced it in 1990, doesnt make clear what he did on the show in 1991 and even says he then quit, so cant be used to claim he produced

2835:

This article is very disturbing. Is it a coincidence it runs the same week as the revelations about police behaviour at Hillsborough? And very strange that none of the information has made it into the media before, even social media or here on Knowledge. It seems police control over available detail

1655:

if some sourcing could be found. I don't think that the Rubik's Cube appearance on TOTP in 1980 is encyclopedically notable in itself, and while YouTube videos contain a lot of interesting archive material, they are generally banned as a source on Knowledge because they were taped off the television

1225:

I'm not happy with the current wording in the article, which says "He appealed his case to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the European Court of Human Rights, but both upheld his convictions". There is no evidence that the ECHR has ever heard a case involving King, and the sourcing does not

1210:

Interesting. But if we assume the links are right and there's a copy of the ECHR letter on his site, should we assume he DIDN'T get first parole half way through his sentence? But there are enough links to show he did. So why? Agreed his never accepted the convictions and never said he was guilty so

1078:

Just a quick line of thanks to Ian and others who have taken this article on - it was always one of the worst examples on Knowledge for aggrandisement (I hesitate to insert 'self' before that word, because of course there is the 0.0001% chance it would be an uncharitable observation) and I'm cheered

687:

Yes and no, and it is a pity that it takes a new account to say this. The average person isn't spending all day worrying about which years Jonathan King hosted or produced the Brits, and it takes a special kind of genius to do this. I don't think that any of the online sourcing is reliable enough to

2257:

King writes "“OK,” he said, “I’ll give you a shot. We’ll do your song ‘All You’ve Gotta Do’ for the ‘A’ side and one of mine – ‘Every Time’ for the ‘B’. Here’s an acetate of that song. Take it away and learn it and come in with your group next week on Tuesday to record both tunes.” I was ecstatic!

1936:

We have people putting up pictures of certain folks with bars over them for tax fraud but not others for millions of dollars of tax fraud. And now this guy gets ONE line about sex-crime with children?!?! I'm beginning to think this wikipedia is curbing what it doesn't want to be seen. Found Genesis

1156:

Thanks for pointing this out. 2007 is a long time ago, so did anything ever come of this? I know it takes a long time to hear cases in Europe, but it might not be notable enough to mention in the article unless something had come of it. As far as I can see, none of King's 2001 convictions have ever

1708:

Good link Ian. It also mentions deely boppers which I'm sure King introduced on TV too. For the Elton story Google Mail Hardcastle Elton John Jonathan King. Found a photo on his site. I'm not sure any are worth individual mentions but the numerous items imply that the tone and coverage in the Wiki

3103:

You've the advantage on us of having read the book. My copy is ordered. It seems this should be a good source as he appears to be a very respected journalist with his discoveries going deeper than both prosecution and defence lawyers. But I wonder about the Knowledge constraints you refer to. Did

3493:

Firstly, there is absolutely no need to mention all his hits in the article text - only if sources suggest that they were particularly significant in some way. Secondly, there is no indication of the significance of being "top singles producer in the Music Week 1971 chart survey" - it certainly

2649:

I don't see it as lighthearted as it actually implies I believe in Kings innocence a hundred percent and want to see him exonerated, which I am not out to prove. If I was I would be spending my time taking to social media and setting up groups for that. Couldn't care less about that, it's not my

2582:, but K's allegations were never tested in court because they were due to be part of the third trial which was dropped. The article cannot say his due to a combination of legal issues and lack of sourcing. King insists that he never met K, who claims that he was abused by King at the age of 15.-- 1497:

Watching the repeat of Top of the Pops from 1980 on the BBC last night, King appears with Rubik's Cube and mentions his Radio One show. I seem to remember he also did a Radio Four slot like Alistair Cook's Letter From America. None of these are in the Knowledge article which seems to miss out an

429:

says "By the '90s he was starting to concentrate more on behind the scenes roles. In 1990, 1991 and 1992 he also wrote & produced The Brits, taking over after the disastrous previous year (Mick Fleetwood and Sam Fox plus a load of mistakes) making hundreds of thousands for the Nordof Robbins

588:

piece usually open with a how-the-mighty-are-fallen list of his pre-disgrace achievements. The problem with them is that often the journalist has clearly got them from King himself via the profile interview and because the main focus is on his post-disgrace situation they don't bother to check.

2728:

I would have thought it obvious that claiming his innocence clearly should not be in the lead but I do find it odd that his acquittal in the second trial is not there when the conviction is. Of course a conviction is a better media story especially for the tabloids but the acquittal is just as

2618:

Just a bit of light hearted language. If King was going to challenge the convictions successfully, it would probably have happened by now. The Court of Appeal refused even to give permission to appeal in January 2003, which some people might find strange. The judge in the appeal court case was

1337:

I attended the Swedish Embassy discussion which was very interesting. Many Eurovision fans regard the Gina G entry as the best ever UK contender. Something proved by the success globally. It was even a big hit in America. That's why I added the mention for it in the King main article here. The

1094:

Agree except it has gone too far. There are many things missing that I'm sure I remember. And the above is also true. What was all that about "did he or didn't he meet Epstein" when it doesn't seem to matter anyway. Did they ever work together? I'm sure I read that his appeal WAS considered by

2555:

Well I'm not going to fight this any further (as I have no warm fuzzy feelings for the man myself). However, I must say I doubt any journalist would question the verdict even if they thought he may not be guilty, seeing as they probably don't have great love for King either. Also, it would be

2504:

Fair enough. However, I still fail to see why you asked for a source to be given if you were of the view it was not important enough to be part of the lead anyway. As for him being found guilty, all those wrongfully convicted had been found guilty (not that I'm saying I think he is innocent.

569:

I suspect that one of the problems with getting reliable information about King is that some of the organisations with which he was involved in the past would like to distance themselves from him - or at least not mention him - while King himself, and his friends, are perhaps more likely to

1016:

It looks like the same circular edits are being made and reverted again. To prevent this from happening, please raise the issues on the talk page first. Also, please bear in mind that it is time consuming for other editors to check a long series of edits. Again, the page is close to having

757:

and the man himself represent this as fact, there is no need to remove it or qualify it with wording such as "King claimed that..." I don't know whether King met Brian Epstein in Hawaii and that is not the real issue here. It is not the job of Wikipedians to override sources such as

800:, they never played a live concert in Hawaii. At best, they could have been there during a stopover. By 1964, it was pretty much impossible for the Beatles to go anywhere without massive media coverage, and there is no reliable sourcing online about them visiting Hawaii. There is a 1545:, this shows that the BBC has kept its word not to remove King from future repeats of TOTP. I'm not sure if this is notable enough for the article in its current form. Maybe some eagle-eyed viewer will complain about King's appearance on BBC4. I remember from one episode of 2456:

You asked for a source. No mention of it not being worthy of the lead then. One was provided. Then you state it's not good enough to be in the lead. Why ask for a source to back up the claim to be provided if you don't consider it worthy of mention in the first place?

3478:

I'm not trying to be difficult but since the track is worthy of listing in his productions below, surely it should be mentioned in the main article? And the credit for being the top singles producer in that year is enormously significant, isn't it? What am I missing?

2505:

Thankfully I wasn't part of the jury on this one though). Knowledge is there to educate and allow the reader to form their own views on said matters. Not everyone is going to read the whole article, and thus equal balance should be given to introductions as well.

1817:

I edited the page to reflect that he is also known as a convicted child abuser , this was edited shortly after could anyone explain why please? I would state the case that he is more well known for his child abuse than a pop singer/promoter at this point in time.

1256:

I'm not sure I see a problem. That sentence includes as an inline citation the Chalmers piece from 2012 which says "He has attempted to appeal in Brussels and elsewhere, without success." The other citations bring up the CCRC. To me the "and elsewhere" covers it.

2018:

Is it just a co-incidence that just as he starts appearing in the media again - Spectator, Mail, Standard and so on, talking about false accusations specifically Heath and Proctor, this happens? Obviously not something for the main article but worth considering

1039:

Please list which edits you object to and I will discuss? No-one seemed to mind when "world wide hit" for example was added, and that another band 20 years later had a hit with a song he also covered? Lets make this article fair, not biased towards the subject

1686:. Although they were launched in the UK in late 1980 and were intended to be popular in the 1980 Christmas market, a shortage meant that they did not take off until 1981. King's demo was probably one of the first times that it appeared on British television.-- 1470:

I was at the Carol King musical then read the Jonathan King Spectator link. Thought of Mickie Most and Bob Crewe and Bert Berns and others like that and thought there are many King hits - some on his label - not listed. But "others" is a far better category.

570:

over-state his triumphs. That all makes life more difficult for those of us trying to set out a balanced picture, and indeed makes life difficult for journalists who may sometimes be tempted to use information that is readily available from King himself.

3154:

after 27 years, changed public opinion. I read Dominic Lawson in today's Mail. Quite astonishing in a right wing paper. Would Knowledge 27 years ago have reflected that side of opinion? And should it not, now, reflect the changing court of public opinion?

2974:

was found guilty on the Cambridge and Havant charges, even though the witness got the Cambridge date wrong by three years and it was not possible to pin down a date from contemporary records for the Havant incident, which was presumed to have happened in

2743:

I wouldn't say it was "obvious" but as I had stated a few times now, I am not challenging this after the dialog on this page. That said, I do agree that his acquittal on the second round of claims is just as important as his conviction for the first lot.

1734:. This is another example of a King anecdote which is based on personal recollection. Hardcastle's theory "Is this revenge for Sir Elton failing to support King when he was jailed for seven years in 2001 for sex with underage boys?" is speculative. The 613:

King entered the music industry with his 1965 single "Everyone's Gone to the Moon", which reached no 4 in the UK and no 17 in the USA. He followed this with several record releases, of which several made the UK Singles Chart Top 10 in the

3122:

makes clear that Knowledge is not about campaigning journalism either for or against a particular person. Just a thought: Even if King succeeded in overturning some or all of the accusations, would it make much difference? It didn't for

2854:, Peter Bessell's credibility as a witness was undermined by a newspaper deal which would have benefited him financially if Thorpe was found guilty. Newspapers should in theory be careful not to offer this kind of deal before a trial.-- 1271:

IIRC, it used to say something more like "...but without success", as in the source you quoted. I don't think that, technically, either the CCRC or the ECHR ever uphold convictions - the most they do is uphold or reject complaints.

1286:

Agreed, King may have filed appeals to these bodies that fizzled out for some reason. I am wary of giving the impression that the EHCR in Strasbourg ever heard a case in open court involving King, when there is no evidence that it

2758:

After reading the chapter on him mentioned here by another editor it seems his claims deserve examining. And glib comments like "he would, wouldn't he?" above tar that editor with the same brush as the Sun editor on Hillsborough.

2038:, perhaps. It is unclear why the Walton Hop claims have resurfaced in Operation Ravine, which has been running since late 2014, but presumably someone went to the police and started making complaints. Good coverage from getSurrey 710:

A further complication is what a producer does. There are executive producers, assistant producers etc. I'm not sure why this has become such an issue, and have to stress once again that a Knowledge article is only as good as the

2528:

have not questioned the guilty verdicts and King has never been able to appeal against them successfully. It is appropriate for the main body of the article to point out that King has maintained that he is innocent, but it is

1887:

Infoboxes are for presenting a summary of information. Saying "he's a paedo" in the infobox is too tabloid and ignores all of the other things that King did in his career. This is better dealt with later on in the article.

3285: 855:

as you have found out that this claim may be not true, as the Beatles werent actually there, I expect that there will be a update that he got the place wrong once he has seen where they actually where that year!

464:, and the BBC, are reliable on this - his own "official biography", and certainly IMDb, are not necessarily reliable. Incidentally, I hope the person who started this thread realises the big difference between 2556:

something of a taboo in society to even claim you consider the mere possibility he may not be guilty seeing as in this world you can't do that without many people saying you must be a child abuser yourself.

688:

say with any certainty which years JK produced or hosted the Brits. We seem to be agreed on him producing the show in 1991, but 1990 and 1992 - despite being quoted in King's own online bio - are disputed.--

3054:

The book is incredible. Not just about King's case but many others. But someone should correct many of the glaring inaccuracies and mistakes in the main Wiki article here after reading the chapter on King.

2969:

issues, as it hasn't been accepted by a court that this influenced what was said. The real problem is the dates, as King could not have been charged many years later if the accuser was over 16 at the time.

2978:

However, a Knowledge article cannot get involved in campaigning journalism and is constrained by the fact that the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not accept that King had been denied a fair trial.--

2488:

No - but the important fact is that he was found guilty. His claims of innocence are covered in the section on 2000s-2010s. However, it's undue weight to include them in the introductory paragraphs.

205:

We've discussed before which years Jonathan King hosted or presented the Brit Awards, and the online sourcing is not ideal. Also, some of the editng in recent days has been tiring. If this continues, a

532: 188: 2004:, to see if it comes to anything substantial. However, no doubt, a myriad of IPs etc would soon come by trying to add non-NPOV wording so, pragmatically, it's probably best that you've added it now. 1573:

Yes its the reliable sourcing problem that worries me about many Knowledge articles which seems to disregard interesting events because of the lack of "reliable sourcing" except in Knowledge itself!

1179:

no idea and dont really care but comments like above saying it wasnt being considered arent right. like all the epstein stuff. seems to be some people who want to blur lines like the Rollers singles.

1937:

so he must remain spotless? is it that nonsense? or one of the NEUTRAL arbitrators just won't allow his perversion to be big in the way that tax crime is on pages realted to others. Messed up.

3016:. The CCRC did not refer the case back to the Court of Appeal, and that seems to be it as far as the UK courts were concerned; there has been no change in the status of any of the convictions.-- 2574:

case, where numerous journalists questioned the reliability of the 1975 verdicts. King has never had any appeal on these charges, because he was refused permission to appeal in January 2003

2086: 3286:

http://web.archive.org/web/20121014101723/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/features/article_1639923.php/64th-Annual-Cannes-Film-Festival-The-Tree-of-Live-Photocall-Pictures?page=5

2798:

It is billed as new evidence, although King has said before that he was in New York in September 1985 with documents to prove it, and therefore could not have been in the UK at the time.

2796: 2714:

That it is, although that is not much of a compliment in itself. However, I do think the article is very well written overall and (as I said) am not challenging the removal of my edit

2148:

Researching Joe Meek I find many mentions of Jonathan King but nothing here in his Knowledge entry. Any reason for this? Was he recorded by Meek? Did he make tribute songs about him?

745:

says "While in Hawaii he bumped into The Beatles on tour, and turned not to John, Paul, Ringo or George for advice, but to their genius manager, Brian Epstein." Meanwhile, regarding

1140: 3498:. Thirdly, the source you provided doesn't mention sales figures for the St Cecilia record. There is no consensus to add that information, and you need to be aware of policy on 3289: 3012:

I tried to find what the Criminal Cases Review Commission said in detail about King's case but couldn't find any documentation online. There isn't anything on the CCRC website,

491: 411:

Sadly, there seems to be little online trace of the 1990 ceremony, at which King supposedly got Thatcher (yes, her) to sing a snatch of "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window?"

2947:

The £50K was more interesting I thought as you say above. I assume it was a chain restaurant like MacDonalds (Chicago). Good point about the one second ianmacm (Macdonalds???)

1633:

There was a piece in one of the British papers a couple of days ago about King and Elton John too. None of this 1980s information is much reflected in the main Wiki article.

1338:

general feeling during the debate was that 1995 onwards was, during King's tenure, the golden age for not only the UK but Eurovision generally. As illustrated by the ratings.

163:

no source at all that he produced the brits ever an interview where he himself says he met the beatles is not a reliable source, I could say the same, doesnt mean its true

3069:

Please name the "glaring inaccuracies". Every effort has been made to get things right within the limit of the sourcing available. As I've said, Bob Woffinden's 2016 book

2197:, but "This video previously contained a copyrighted audio track. Due to a claim by a copyright holder, the audio track has been muted" so we can't hear what he says.-- 1017:

semi-protection and a sock puppet investigation, as the circular editing usually involves the same disputed edits made with little or no discussion on the talk page.--

1226:

support the claim that the Criminal Cases Review Commission upheld the conviction, only that King's case was referred there. Some more detail on this and the parole

3337: 3333: 3319: 3040:

As the Mail said. I've ordered the book from Amazon. Telegraph today says only 612 out of 19,234 applications sent by CCRC to Appeal court. Something very wrong.

2360: 2356: 2342: 141:

Apologies - got hooked into it by regular changes and originally linked through another artiste. But I notice you seem far more interested in this article than I.

3450:

So the question now is whether "top singles producer in the Music Week 1971 chart survey" is sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned here. I don't think so.

870:

reading that chapter in his book he says he met their publicist Dereck Tailor in Melbourne Australia in 1964 who told him where Epstein was staying in Hawaii.

3223:

I've seen some (but not all) of these things before, and they are largely traced back to things that King has said in the past. This leads to an element of

2604:

I already said I wasn't going to challenge this further. That said, stating King denies he is guilty is hardly the "Free the Bayswater One Campaign" is it?

1872:

Below the age of consent? That would be child abuse and he was convicted and served a prison term .If they were girls he would have been charged with rape.

1551:, King tried to bring back an alarm clock in the shape of sticks of dynamite, but was stopped at the airport. Maybe this is in the BBC archive somewhere. 1538: 672:

Unless anyone can put a link that shows he produced it in 1990 and then 1992 as well (even though it says he quit) then this should be changed surely?

1833:

This is the latest in a long line of circular edits on this theme. I don't think that saying that he is a child abuser is suitable for the infobox.--

1779: 3464:

Not here perhaps but in the main article surely yes. If the track mentioned deserves a Knowledge article, I think it should be in the King article.

1727: 797: 3290:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/features/article_1639923.php/64th-Annual-Cannes-Film-Festival-The-Tree-of-Live-Photocall-Pictures?page=5

1602:. It seems to have failed to attract the attention of historians. The video clip here is copyrighted, so it could not be used as a citation, per 1141:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/jonathan-king-wins-right-to-appeal-to-europe-over-his-convictions-for-sexual-assaults-on-teenage-boys-6646017.html

1977:

grounds. Given that some of these police operations seem to be becoming increasingly speculative, the acid test is whether any charges follow.--

1731: 310:... and their current version of his "biography", written by an IMDb contributor called "thejktruth", is definitely not a neutral perspective. 386: 2065: 2020: 1855:

He is not a "child abuser". He is a gay man one or two of whose sexual partners were below the age of consent. There is a big difference. --

1096: 2149: 1041: 615: 350: 270: 173: 770: 3056: 3041: 2948: 2877: 2760: 2745: 2715: 2651: 2605: 2557: 2506: 2474: 2458: 2119: 1472: 1402: 989: 1517:

which was on Radio 1 circa 1980 on Saturdays at 2 PM. Unfortunately, this seems to have fallen off the radar of reliable sourcing. The

2837: 2115:

but I'm intrigued by the background to this. Read the Spectator piece plus the comments - fury he is allowed to write - and then this

1212: 1197: 1080: 637:). These are not credited to King, he uses a pseudonym (a bit like some of the accounts here, oops). Which four do you have in mind?-- 371: 2925:

has captioned it as New York. If Jonathan King is reading this (stranger things have been known) he might be able to explain this. --

960:

We have discussed the fact that he seems to have produced at least four tracks with the Bay City Rollers, two of which were released.

1227: 804:

though. If Jonathan King is reading this - and stranger things have happened - maybe he could give a date for the visit to Hawaii.--

3275: 3118:

Obviously I can't comment on Elton John and his privacy due to some strange form of memory loss which is occurring at the moment.

2902:'s book is new evidence, although the claim that King was in New York in September 1985 first surfaced in 2006 at the time of the 896:

I've made various edits to restore reliably sourced material in the article. If any of these edits gets reverted - and that means

3077:

looked at this evidence and King's convictions are still standing, much like Elton John. The Knowledge article is constrained by

3074: 2911: 2903: 2624: 2320: 1231: 2064:

King says on his website that the claims against him had nothing to do with the Walton Hop. Is he lying? In which case - why?

2082: 2664:

I apologise if this was found offensive, as it wasn't meant to be. It was based on something that Lynn Barber said in the

2039: 1953: 314:

is considered neutral and reliable, so is the BBC. Both state that he produced the Brits, so that should be mentioned.

2906:

hearing of the case. As we know, none of the legal avenues has ever overturned any of King's convictions. On his website

1892:

applies here, and unless the article is about a crime, there is no need to mention criminal convictions in the infobox.--

1651:

shows. It isn't practical for the article to list everything that King ever did, although it would be useful to mention

1456:

Those are his productions, but I don't know what his "label hits" might be. I'll remove those words from the heading.

91: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3566:

Fair enough I'll leave it to you. You obviously know more about editing and Knowledge than I do. Sorry to interfere.

2627:

as his lawyer at one point during the campaign to prove his innocence; like Max Clifford, he is now also in prison.--

3193:

He gave Jimi Hendrix somewhere to stay when he arrived in London and played him the original US version of Hey Joe.

2524:

in saying in the lead section that King continues to protest his innocence. While this is true, journalists such as

1647:

I couldn't find anything from a Google search, do you have a link? King did interview Elton John at least twice, as

861: 838: 677: 38: 3187:

He ran Decca Records and persuaded Mick Jagger to record Honky Tonk Women and You Can’t Always Get What You Want.

1055:

I don't have time to make a point by point rebuttal at the moment. Some of the edits have been discussed before.--

2620: 2034: 1100: 3336:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2359:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1738:

did not mention the Rubik's Cube appearance, as it could have done. Some people on Twitter were very upset, and

2069: 2024: 1045: 619: 354: 274: 177: 2153: 1657: 543:

only mentions 1991. Ghmyrtle and I are doing our best here (without being paid) so please bear this in mind.--

2123: 1476: 1406: 1357:. King can rightly claim to be the last person to have overseen a UK win in the contest, which was in 1997.-- 540: 3267: 3060: 3045: 2952: 2881: 2876:

That Mail article from the book really does indicate some of the King article here should be rewritten IMO.

2841: 2764: 2749: 2719: 2655: 2609: 2561: 2510: 2478: 2462: 2163:

Not that I know of via reliable sources. King, however, has recorded a song about Meek, which is on YouTube

1216: 1201: 1084: 993: 375: 3070: 857: 834: 673: 3184:

Missing from the Wiki article are several facts that I found interesting. Surely they should be included?

1714: 1638: 1578: 1522: 1503: 1384: 1343: 536: 3375: 3355:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3343: 2398: 2378:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2366: 1922: 1877: 1823: 1739: 1353:

There is an element of subjective validation here, as wording along the lines of "many fans believe" is

3266:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2665: 1949: 1710: 1634: 1574: 1499: 946:

seems to be coming to a head. Agree that if this carries on some sort of protection should be sought.

742: 104:

Regular removals of links and apparent contradictions to facts included in linked articles corrected.

3310: 1941: 367: 266: 207: 169: 2081:

here, we will have to wait to see how it turns out. King has posted on his website about the arrest

1180: 1143: 975: 961: 871: 3571: 3484: 3469: 3441: 3427: 3398: 3213: 3159: 3109: 2918: 2734: 2112: 2078: 1918: 1873: 1819: 1184: 1147: 979: 965: 875: 3205:

King was about to take over as Chairman of EMI Records worldwide when police knocked on his door.

2812:

Giving exact dates for incidents of historic sexual abuse can easily lead to this type of error.--

2650:

fight, or my belief. As for everything else in your last comment I knew all of it. Thanks anyway.

1945: 1401:

Trying to compile a correct list of chart hits under this category. Any help would be appreciated.

119:

Says Noel, who appears to have an unusual interest in this article. Whatever happened to JK2006?--

3507: 3455: 3413: 2494: 2446: 1461: 1421: 1277: 936: 575: 477: 416: 319: 237: 196: 146: 109: 47: 17: 3340:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3276:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120312035115/http://vueweekly.com/music/story/old_sounds_gogmagog/

2363:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

3356: 2379: 3128: 2302: 2009: 2001: 1974: 1860: 1603: 1547: 1380: 1339: 1262: 951: 901: 594: 2795:

There is a new book featured in the news today, which casts doubt on King's 2001 convictions.

1656:

and are copyright violations. King discusses the Rubik's Cube episode on TOTP on his website

3371: 3131:. There is more to a situation like this than simple guilt or innocence in a court of law.-- 2394: 2321:

https://web.archive.org/20120312035115/http://vueweekly.com/music/story/old_sounds_gogmagog/

2227:

is King's appearance in the documentary and this time we can hear what he says about Meek.--

1354: 494:

having no recollection of this. Should King's official biography be filed under "fiction"?--

3363: 2386: 2194: 2116: 1683: 349:

and he wasnt even the main producer then, so why does it keep getting changed to 3 years???

2530: 2310: 1786:

is not notable enough for a mention in the article. King offers his personal opinion that

303: 2224: 1598:

is an edited version of the video. The problem is that there is no online sourcing about

452:

Perhaps we need to remember that we should be reporting what reliable sources say... not

3279: 3196:

He sold over 40 million records as a singer and many more as a producer and label boss.

2570:

Knowledge is not the place for a "Free the Bayswater One" campaign. This isn't like the

2324: 1114: 3567: 3480: 3465: 3437: 3423: 3394: 3322:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 3224: 3209: 3155: 3105: 2730: 2571: 2345:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1521:

episode was from 18 September 1980 and was on BBC4 at 1:15 this morning. Thanks to the

1110: 905: 426: 3362:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2385:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

769:

Since anyone can play this game, I am not sure if or when the Beatles were in Hawaii.

3503: 3451: 3409: 3259: 3124: 3119: 3078: 2966: 2962: 2899: 2851: 2521: 2490: 2442: 2292: 1889: 1607: 1534: 1457: 1417: 1273: 932: 571: 473: 412: 315: 252:

that is an interview with the subject, how is that a reliable source? This is better

233: 192: 142: 105: 1606:. King says that Rubik's Cube is "a new irritating American game" in the video, but 3575: 3511: 3499: 3488: 3473: 3459: 3445: 3431: 3417: 3408:

The information added is not supported by the cited source, so I have removed it.

3402: 3383: 3244: 3230: 3217: 3163: 3148: 3134: 3113: 3098: 3084: 3064: 3049: 3033: 3019: 2995: 2981: 2956: 2942: 2928: 2885: 2871: 2857: 2845: 2829: 2815: 2768: 2753: 2738: 2723: 2689: 2675: 2659: 2644: 2630: 2613: 2599: 2585: 2579: 2565: 2550: 2536: 2514: 2498: 2482: 2466: 2450: 2428: 2414: 2406: 2275: 2261: 2244: 2230: 2214: 2200: 2184: 2170: 2157: 2127: 2106: 2092: 2073: 2059: 2045: 2028: 2013: 2005: 1994: 1980: 1957: 1926: 1909: 1895: 1881: 1864: 1856: 1850: 1836: 1827: 1807: 1793: 1787: 1759: 1745: 1718: 1703: 1689: 1677: 1663: 1642: 1627: 1613: 1582: 1568: 1554: 1507: 1480: 1465: 1451: 1437: 1425: 1410: 1388: 1374: 1360: 1347: 1304: 1290: 1281: 1266: 1258: 1251: 1237: 1220: 1205: 1188: 1174: 1160: 1151: 1134: 1120: 1104: 1088: 1072: 1058: 1049: 1034: 1020: 997: 983: 969: 955: 947: 940: 925: 911: 879: 865: 842: 821: 807: 790: 776: 728: 714: 705: 691: 681: 654: 640: 623: 598: 590: 579: 560: 546: 511: 497: 481: 447: 433: 420: 406: 392: 379: 358: 323: 278: 241: 227: 213: 200: 181: 150: 136: 122: 113: 1790:

was not gay because he failed to seduce him on a flight from Scotland to London.--

741:

Someone has a persistent problem with this, and it is becoming rather tiring. The

629:

It has been a long day already, but I'm pretty sure that King does the singing on

3329: 2971: 2802: 2525: 2352: 1530: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3422:

Apologies - added the Word SINGLES which is the correct wording in the source.

1117:

or other source. As ever, it is a non-starter without some reliable sourcing.--

3328:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2438:

I've reverted mention of his claimed innocence, which was added to the lede -

2351:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2164: 1648: 634: 630: 2799: 2575: 1595: 773:

says that John and George were there around May 1964, but it is not ideal.--

2623:

and he appeared to be dead set against the concept of the appeal. King had

2917:

article pointed out that the receipt for the restaurant has an address in

2976: 2810: 1970: 1434:, it appears to be records that King produced but did not sing on them.-- 584:

The other problem is that the "post-disgrace" media "profiles" (like the

2307:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1682:

There is a good article about the launch of the Rubik's Cube in the UK

344: 261: 974:

I reverted the Bay City Rollers inaccuracy and also Epstein see below.

1932:

weird minority impact of what ALL people consider stained his career.

486:

We also know that King claims to have won the Ivor Novello Award for

232:

I've looked at the URLs and though similar they seem to be different.

2894:

as a source. There is also a somewhat misleading impression in the

2315:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1730:

on 8 July, while the blog piece it refers to on King's website is

3190:

He never took drugs but he guided John Lennon through LSD trips.

2578:

false. It was a man called K who set all of this off by going to

1526: 908:

investigation. We cannot keep going round in circles like this.--

801: 3393:

Added some missing info culled from Billboard and other sites.

25: 3295:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2330:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3199:

He broke the news about John Lennon’s shooting to the BBC.

2890:

I thought about adding this, but some people just hate the

2520:

We've been through this before, and there is an element of

1537:, which was launched in 1980. Given what happened with the 430:

industry charity." Is this wrong? I am well puzzled here.--

3270:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

3268:

User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ

3013: 166:

Please dont add again unless reliable sources are added

3180:

Missing details from the Woffinden book and other places

2291:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2117:

http://annaraccoon.com/2015/09/11/publish-and-be-damned/

3263: 2439: 2296: 1723:

The Elton John article is by Ephraim Hardcastle in the

1431: 746: 3280:

http://vueweekly.com/music/story/old_sounds_gogmagog/

2325:

http://vueweekly.com/music/story/old_sounds_gogmagog/

1139:

really hate to get involved again Ian but found this

3227:, as there may not be secondary sourcing for them.-- 2189:

King's appearance in the 1991 BBC Arena documentary

3332:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2355:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1211:cannot have done any courses. Something very odd. 364:Link provided from Variety - US trade magazine. 669:the 1992 show. The third ref again is for 1991. 3318:This message was posted before February 2018. 3202:He discovered and broke Who Let The Dogs Out? 2898:article, because it gives the impression that 2341:This message was posted before February 2018. 1234:is now in prison himself, like Max Clifford.-- 1742:probably had to go and lie down afterwards.-- 8: 3208:Should these not be a part of the article? 2809:incident wrong by a margin of three years. 2000:I think I might normally have waited, per 1379:True enough. Can't speak for anyone else! 533:produced the Brit awards from 1990 to 1992 365: 264: 167: 3258:I have just modified 2 external links on 3071:The Nicholas Cases: Casualties of Justice 2805:, one of the victims got the date of the 2223:After some further searching on YouTube, 3494:doesn't sound like it was a significant 2913:Some of the people who commented on the 3534: 3073:isn't really offering much new, as the 1915:Thank you for clarifying that for me. 798:List of the Beatles' live performances 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3307:to let others know (documentation at 1973:. I wasn't sure about adding this on 7: 456:what may be true. I would say that 3389:"Record Producer of the Year" claim 345:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454909/ 262:http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454909/ 2253:In Chapter 7 of his autobiography 2111:Not for the article - as you say, 766:with their own personal analyses. 24: 3262:. Please take a moment to review 2295:. Please take a moment to review 2085:. The Surrey Police statement is 3075:Criminal Cases Review Commission 2904:Criminal Cases Review Commission 2729:important in history, isn't it? 1709:article are less than accurate. 29: 1232:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster) 609:there were 4, why cant I put 4? 2128:06:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC) 2107:05:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC) 2074:19:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 2060:05:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 2029:05:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC) 2014:08:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 1995:06:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC) 1774:Jonathan King and Edward Heath 1529:is a screen shot of King with 1: 2754:15:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 2739:15:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC) 2724:15:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2690:15:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2660:11:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2645:11:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2614:10:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2600:10:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2566:09:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2551:07:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2515:16:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 2499:15:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 2483:15:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 2467:15:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 2451:15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) 2429:15:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 2276:14:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 2245:13:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 2215:12:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 2191:The Strange Story of Joe Meek 2185:12:13, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 2158:12:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 1958:23:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC) 1157:been appealed successfully.-- 2407:22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC) 749:, King says in Chapter 7 of 539:is somewhat unclear and the 340:produced the brits once only 2441:. He would, wouldn't he? 1513:One of the radio slots was 3606: 3349:(last update: 5 June 2024) 3255:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2372:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2313:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 2288:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1927:11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC) 1910:05:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 1882:22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 1865:21:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 1851:18:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 1828:15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC) 1808:06:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC) 1397:Productions and Label Hits 1230:. It is worth noting that 1073:11:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 1050:11:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 1035:09:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 998:14:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 984:08:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 970:17:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 956:13:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 941:08:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 926:08:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC) 880:08:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC) 866:13:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 843:13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 822:14:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 791:13:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC) 729:16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 706:13:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 682:13:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC) 655:19:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 624:19:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 599:18:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 580:17:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 561:17:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 512:16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 482:16:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 448:16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 421:16:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 407:16:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 380:15:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 359:14:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 324:14:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 279:14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 242:11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 228:11:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 210:investigation is likely.-- 201:10:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 182:09:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 151:11:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 137:11:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 114:11:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC) 3576:11:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3512:10:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3489:10:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3474:10:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3460:08:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3446:08:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3436:Link to correct wording 3432:08:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3418:07:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3403:06:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 3384:05:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) 2035:Post hoc ergo propter hoc 1760:11:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1719:10:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC) 1704:05:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC) 1678:13:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC) 1643:12:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) 1628:12:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1583:10:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1569:07:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1508:06:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC) 1416:What are "label hits"? 1111:King's official biography 900:of them - I will request 427:King's official biography 3245:17:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 3218:15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 3164:17:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 3149:09:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 3114:08:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC) 3099:05:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 3065:05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 2769:05:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 1481:09:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC) 1466:18:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC) 1452:17:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC) 1426:12:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) 1411:12:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC) 1389:09:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 1375:04:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 1348:04:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC) 988:Restored previous links 3251:External links modified 3050:07:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 3034:19:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 3014:http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/ 2996:15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 2957:14:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 2943:09:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 2886:08:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 2872:08:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 2846:07:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 2830:06:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 2621:Sir Christopher Holland 2533:for the lead section.-- 2284:External links modified 1305:04:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC) 1282:22:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC) 1267:22:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC) 1252:20:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC) 1221:19:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC) 1206:12:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1189:08:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1175:08:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1152:08:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC) 1135:13:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1105:10:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC) 1089:15:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC) 2961:The £50,000 claim has 2852:trial of Jeremy Thorpe 1543:It Only Takes a Minute 737:King and Brian Epstein 665:the 3 sources listed: 631:It Only Takes a Minute 42:of past discussions. 3330:regular verification 2791:New book in the news 2353:regular verification 2338:to let others know. 2299:. If necessary, add 1778:Before anyone asks, 1109:Yes, I read this in 833:lol, what Ian said. 802:Royal Hawaiian Hotel 3320:After February 2018 3299:parameter below to 2919:Clearwater, Florida 2625:Giovanni Di Stefano 2343:After February 2018 2334:parameter below to 3325:InternetArchiveBot 2348:InternetArchiveBot 1653:A King in New York 1649:this YouTube video 1600:A King in New York 1515:A King in New York 1115:ECHR/HUDOC website 18:Talk:Jonathan King 3382: 3350: 3129:Michael Barrymore 2434:Claimed innocence 2405: 2373: 2255:65 My Life So Far 1961: 1944:comment added by 1548:Entertainment USA 751:65 My Life So Far 488:Una Paloma Blanca 382: 370:comment added by 308:a reliable source 281: 269:comment added by 184: 172:comment added by 97: 96: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3597: 3544: 3539: 3378: 3377:Talk to my owner 3373: 3348: 3347: 3326: 3314: 3240: 3238: 3237: 3144: 3142: 3141: 3094: 3092: 3091: 3029: 3027: 3026: 2991: 2989: 2988: 2938: 2936: 2935: 2867: 2865: 2864: 2825: 2823: 2822: 2801:At the trial of 2685: 2683: 2682: 2640: 2638: 2637: 2595: 2593: 2592: 2546: 2544: 2543: 2424: 2422: 2421: 2401: 2400:Talk to my owner 2396: 2371: 2370: 2349: 2314: 2306: 2271: 2269: 2268: 2240: 2238: 2237: 2210: 2208: 2207: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2102: 2100: 2099: 2055: 2053: 2052: 1990: 1988: 1987: 1960: 1938: 1905: 1903: 1902: 1846: 1844: 1843: 1803: 1801: 1800: 1755: 1753: 1752: 1699: 1697: 1696: 1673: 1671: 1670: 1623: 1621: 1620: 1564: 1562: 1561: 1447: 1445: 1444: 1370: 1368: 1367: 1300: 1298: 1297: 1247: 1245: 1244: 1170: 1168: 1167: 1130: 1128: 1127: 1068: 1066: 1065: 1030: 1028: 1027: 921: 919: 918: 858:Empeorersclothes 835:Empeorersclothes 817: 815: 814: 786: 784: 783: 724: 722: 721: 701: 699: 698: 674:Empeorersclothes 650: 648: 647: 556: 554: 553: 507: 505: 504: 443: 441: 440: 402: 400: 399: 223: 221: 220: 132: 130: 129: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3605: 3604: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3540: 3536: 3391: 3381: 3376: 3341: 3334:have permission 3324: 3308: 3253: 3235: 3233: 3231: 3182: 3139: 3137: 3135: 3089: 3087: 3085: 3024: 3022: 3020: 2986: 2984: 2982: 2933: 2931: 2929: 2921:, although the 2862: 2860: 2858: 2820: 2818: 2816: 2793: 2680: 2678: 2676: 2635: 2633: 2631: 2590: 2588: 2586: 2541: 2539: 2537: 2436: 2419: 2417: 2415: 2404: 2399: 2364: 2357:have permission 2347: 2308: 2300: 2286: 2266: 2264: 2262: 2235: 2233: 2231: 2205: 2203: 2201: 2175: 2173: 2171: 2146: 2097: 2095: 2093: 2066:109.144.241.105 2050: 2048: 2046: 2021:109.144.241.105 1985: 1983: 1981: 1967: 1939: 1934: 1929: 1900: 1898: 1896: 1841: 1839: 1837: 1815: 1798: 1796: 1794: 1780:this blog piece 1776: 1750: 1748: 1746: 1694: 1692: 1690: 1668: 1666: 1664: 1618: 1616: 1614: 1610:is Hungarian.-- 1593: 1559: 1557: 1555: 1519:Top of the Pops 1495: 1493:Top of the Pops 1442: 1440: 1438: 1399: 1365: 1363: 1361: 1335: 1295: 1293: 1291: 1242: 1240: 1238: 1165: 1163: 1161: 1125: 1123: 1121: 1097:213.174.123.195 1063: 1061: 1059: 1025: 1023: 1021: 1014: 916: 914: 912: 902:semi-protection 894: 812: 810: 808: 781: 779: 777: 764:The Independent 739: 719: 717: 715: 696: 694: 692: 663: 661:the brits again 645: 643: 641: 611: 551: 549: 547: 529:The Independent 502: 500: 498: 468:the Brits, and 458:The Independent 438: 436: 434: 397: 395: 393: 342: 312:The Independent 218: 216: 214: 189:Reliable source 161: 127: 125: 123: 102: 100:Regular changes 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3603: 3601: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3546: 3545: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3390: 3387: 3374: 3368: 3367: 3360: 3293: 3292: 3284:Added archive 3282: 3274:Added archive 3252: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3181: 3178: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3037: 3036: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2792: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2647: 2602: 2572:Birmingham Six 2502: 2501: 2470: 2469: 2435: 2432: 2397: 2391: 2390: 2383: 2328: 2327: 2319:Added archive 2285: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2248: 2247: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2193:is on YouTube 2150:41.250.174.155 2145: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 1966: 1963: 1933: 1930: 1917: 1913: 1912: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1814: 1813:His conviction 1811: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1398: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1334: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1076: 1075: 1042:109.148.27.222 1013: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 931:Quite right. 893: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 848: 847: 846: 845: 827: 825: 824: 738: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 662: 659: 658: 657: 616:86.135.237.210 610: 607: 606: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 564: 563: 541:Variety source 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 351:86.135.237.210 341: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 271:86.135.237.210 253: 249: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 174:86.135.237.210 160: 157: 156: 155: 154: 153: 101: 98: 95: 94: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3602: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3543: 3538: 3535: 3531: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3400: 3396: 3388: 3386: 3385: 3379: 3372: 3365: 3361: 3358: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3345: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3321: 3316: 3312: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3260:Jonathan King 3256: 3250: 3246: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3226: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3206: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3188: 3185: 3179: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3130: 3126: 3125:Jeremy Thorpe 3121: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3057:109.26.219.36 3053: 3052: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3042:109.26.219.36 3039: 3038: 3035: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3015: 3011: 3010: 2997: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2977: 2973: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2949:109.26.219.36 2946: 2945: 2944: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2900:Bob Woffinden 2897: 2893: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878:109.26.219.36 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2853: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2811: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2797: 2790: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761:109.26.219.36 2757: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2746:82.45.239.158 2742: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2716:82.45.239.158 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2652:82.45.239.158 2648: 2646: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2606:82.45.239.158 2603: 2601: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2581: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2558:82.45.239.158 2554: 2553: 2552: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2532: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2507:82.45.239.158 2500: 2496: 2492: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2475:82.45.239.158 2468: 2464: 2460: 2459:82.45.239.158 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2433: 2431: 2430: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2409: 2408: 2402: 2395: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2368: 2362: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2344: 2339: 2337: 2333: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2304: 2298: 2294: 2293:Jonathan King 2289: 2283: 2277: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2256: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2143: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2120:31.54.202.204 2118: 2114: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1976: 1972: 1965:King arrested 1964: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1931: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1911: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1891: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1812: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1789: 1785: 1784:The Spectator 1781: 1773: 1761: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1590: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1550: 1549: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1492: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1473:213.152.6.214 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403:213.152.6.214 1396: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1332: 1306: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1037: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1011: 999: 995: 991: 990:109.26.219.36 987: 986: 985: 981: 977: 973: 972: 971: 967: 963: 959: 958: 957: 953: 949: 944: 943: 942: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 927: 924: 923: 922: 907: 903: 899: 891: 881: 877: 873: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 844: 840: 836: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 823: 820: 819: 818: 803: 799: 796:According to 795: 794: 793: 792: 789: 788: 787: 772: 767: 765: 761: 756: 752: 748: 744: 743:Guardian cite 736: 730: 727: 726: 725: 709: 708: 707: 704: 703: 702: 686: 685: 684: 683: 679: 675: 670: 666: 660: 656: 653: 652: 651: 636: 632: 628: 627: 626: 625: 621: 617: 608: 600: 596: 592: 587: 583: 582: 581: 577: 573: 568: 567: 566: 565: 562: 559: 558: 557: 542: 538: 535:", while the 534: 530: 527: 526: 513: 510: 509: 508: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 450: 449: 446: 445: 444: 428: 424: 423: 422: 418: 414: 410: 409: 408: 405: 404: 403: 388: 384: 383: 381: 377: 373: 369: 363: 362: 361: 360: 356: 352: 347: 346: 339: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 307: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 280: 276: 272: 268: 263: 260: 259: 258: 257: 256: 255: 254: 251: 250: 243: 239: 235: 231: 230: 229: 226: 225: 224: 209: 208:WP:SOCKPUPPET 204: 203: 202: 198: 194: 190: 187: 186: 185: 183: 179: 175: 171: 164: 158: 152: 148: 144: 140: 139: 138: 135: 134: 133: 118: 117: 116: 115: 111: 107: 99: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3537: 3529: 3500:edit-warring 3495: 3392: 3369: 3344:source check 3323: 3317: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3294: 3257: 3254: 3229: 3228: 3207: 3204: 3201: 3198: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3183: 3133: 3132: 3083: 3082: 3018: 3017: 2980: 2979: 2927: 2926: 2922: 2914: 2908:King of Hits 2907: 2895: 2891: 2856: 2855: 2838:31.53.52.240 2814: 2813: 2806: 2794: 2674: 2673: 2670:The Observer 2669: 2666:October 2002 2629: 2628: 2584: 2583: 2580:Max Clifford 2535: 2534: 2531:undue weight 2503: 2471: 2437: 2413: 2412: 2410: 2392: 2367:source check 2346: 2340: 2335: 2331: 2329: 2290: 2287: 2260: 2259: 2254: 2229: 2228: 2199: 2198: 2190: 2169: 2168: 2147: 2113:WP:NOTAFORUM 2091: 2090: 2079:WP:NOTAFORUM 2044: 2043: 2033: 1979: 1978: 1969:In the news 1968: 1940:— Preceding 1935: 1914: 1894: 1893: 1871: 1835: 1834: 1816: 1792: 1791: 1788:Edward Heath 1783: 1777: 1744: 1743: 1735: 1724: 1711:Majestic2016 1688: 1687: 1662: 1661: 1652: 1635:Majestic2016 1612: 1611: 1599: 1594: 1575:Majestic2016 1553: 1552: 1546: 1542: 1539:1976 episode 1535:Rubik's Cube 1518: 1514: 1500:Majestic2016 1496: 1436: 1435: 1400: 1381:NewKingsRoad 1359: 1358: 1340:NewKingsRoad 1336: 1289: 1288: 1236: 1235: 1213:41.143.46.40 1198:92.21.205.29 1159: 1158: 1119: 1118: 1081:92.21.205.29 1077: 1057: 1056: 1038: 1019: 1018: 1015: 910: 909: 897: 895: 892:Recent edits 826: 806: 805: 775: 774: 768: 763: 760:The Guardian 759: 755:The Guardian 754: 750: 740: 713: 712: 690: 689: 671: 667: 664: 639: 638: 635:Loop di Love 612: 585: 545: 544: 528: 496: 495: 487: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 432: 431: 391: 390: 389:from 1991.-- 372:31.53.52.156 366:— Preceding 348: 343: 311: 305: 265:— Preceding 212: 211: 168:— Preceding 165: 162: 121: 120: 103: 75: 43: 37: 3311:Sourcecheck 2972:Rolf Harris 2850:During the 2803:Rolf Harris 2526:Lynn Barber 1740:this person 1531:Simon Bates 711:sourcing.-- 586:Independent 454:necessarily 159:some points 36:This is an 3530:References 2807:Star Games 2002:WP:CRYSTAL 1975:WP:NOTNEWS 1725:Daily Mail 1608:Ernő Rubik 1604:WP:YOUTUBE 1498:awful lot. 1333:Eurovision 1012:April 2015 906:sockpuppet 537:BBC source 490:, despite 466:presenting 3568:Acquaduct 3481:Acquaduct 3466:Acquaduct 3438:Acquaduct 3424:Acquaduct 3395:Acquaduct 3364:this tool 3357:this tool 3210:Acquaduct 3156:Acquaduct 3106:Acquaduct 2731:Acquaduct 2668:piece in 2387:this tool 2380:this tool 1432:this edit 1355:WP:WEASEL 1181:Gary Bern 1144:Gary Bern 976:Gary Bern 962:Gary Bern 872:Gary Bern 771:This cite 747:this edit 470:producing 385:Did find 92:Archive 7 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3504:Ghmyrtle 3452:Ghmyrtle 3410:Ghmyrtle 3370:Cheers.— 2491:Ghmyrtle 2443:Ghmyrtle 2393:Cheers.— 2303:cbignore 2144:Joe Meek 1954:contribs 1942:unsigned 1919:Darthbaz 1874:Darthbaz 1820:Darthbaz 1533:and the 1458:Ghmyrtle 1418:Ghmyrtle 1274:Formerip 1095:Europe. 933:Ghmyrtle 572:Ghmyrtle 474:Ghmyrtle 413:Ghmyrtle 368:unsigned 316:Ghmyrtle 304:IMDb is 267:unsigned 234:Noelthai 193:Ghmyrtle 170:unsigned 143:Noelthai 106:Noelthai 3380::Online 3297:checked 3264:my edit 3225:WP:AUTO 2403::Online 2332:checked 2297:my edit 2006:DeCausa 1946:TaSwavo 1857:Alarics 1523:iPlayer 1259:DeCausa 948:DeCausa 591:DeCausa 472:them. 462:Variety 39:archive 3305:failed 3120:WP:RGW 3079:WP:RGW 2967:WP:RGW 2963:WP:BLP 2522:WP:RGW 2311:nobots 1890:WP:BLP 1525:link, 1287:has.-- 1040:please 904:and a 614:1970s. 531:says " 425:Also, 3496:award 2975:1969. 2019:here? 1591:Video 1541:with 1430:From 492:BASCA 302:No. 16:< 3572:talk 3508:talk 3502:. 3485:talk 3470:talk 3456:talk 3442:talk 3428:talk 3414:talk 3399:talk 3301:true 3232:♦Ian 3214:talk 3160:talk 3136:♦Ian 3110:talk 3086:♦Ian 3061:talk 3046:talk 3021:♦Ian 2983:♦Ian 2965:and 2953:talk 2930:♦Ian 2923:Mail 2915:Mail 2896:Mail 2892:Mail 2882:talk 2859:♦Ian 2842:talk 2817:♦Ian 2765:talk 2750:talk 2735:talk 2720:talk 2677:♦Ian 2656:talk 2632:♦Ian 2610:talk 2587:♦Ian 2562:talk 2538:♦Ian 2511:talk 2495:talk 2479:talk 2463:talk 2447:talk 2416:♦Ian 2336:true 2263:♦Ian 2232:♦Ian 2225:here 2202:♦Ian 2195:here 2172:♦Ian 2165:here 2154:talk 2124:talk 2094:♦Ian 2087:here 2083:here 2070:talk 2047:♦Ian 2040:here 2025:talk 2010:talk 1982:♦Ian 1971:here 1950:talk 1923:talk 1897:♦Ian 1878:talk 1861:talk 1838:♦Ian 1824:talk 1795:♦Ian 1747:♦Ian 1736:Mail 1732:here 1728:here 1715:talk 1691:♦Ian 1684:here 1665:♦Ian 1658:here 1639:talk 1615:♦Ian 1596:Here 1579:talk 1556:♦Ian 1527:here 1504:talk 1477:talk 1462:talk 1439:♦Ian 1422:talk 1407:talk 1385:talk 1362:♦Ian 1344:talk 1292:♦Ian 1278:talk 1263:talk 1239:♦Ian 1228:here 1217:talk 1202:talk 1185:talk 1162:♦Ian 1148:talk 1122:♦Ian 1101:talk 1085:talk 1060:♦Ian 1046:talk 1022:♦Ian 994:talk 980:talk 966:talk 952:talk 937:talk 913:♦Ian 876:talk 862:talk 839:talk 809:♦Ian 778:♦Ian 716:♦Ian 693:♦Ian 678:talk 642:♦Ian 633:and 620:talk 595:talk 576:talk 548:♦Ian 499:♦Ian 478:talk 435:♦Ian 417:talk 394:♦Ian 387:this 376:talk 355:talk 320:talk 275:talk 238:talk 215:♦Ian 197:talk 178:talk 147:talk 124:♦Ian 110:talk 3338:RfC 3315:). 3303:or 3288:to 3278:to 3127:or 3081:.-- 2361:RfC 2323:to 2167:.-- 2089:.-- 2042:.-- 1782:in 898:any 762:or 306:not 191:. 3574:) 3510:) 3487:) 3472:) 3458:) 3444:) 3430:) 3416:) 3401:) 3351:. 3346:}} 3342:{{ 3313:}} 3309:{{ 3239:M♦ 3234:Ma 3216:) 3162:) 3143:M♦ 3138:Ma 3112:) 3093:M♦ 3088:Ma 3063:) 3048:) 3028:M♦ 3023:Ma 2990:M♦ 2985:Ma 2955:) 2937:M♦ 2932:Ma 2884:) 2866:M♦ 2861:Ma 2844:) 2824:M♦ 2819:Ma 2767:) 2752:) 2737:) 2722:) 2684:M♦ 2679:Ma 2658:) 2639:M♦ 2634:Ma 2612:) 2594:M♦ 2589:Ma 2564:) 2545:M♦ 2540:Ma 2513:) 2497:) 2481:) 2465:) 2449:) 2423:M♦ 2418:Ma 2411:-- 2374:. 2369:}} 2365:{{ 2309:{{ 2305:}} 2301:{{ 2270:M♦ 2265:Ma 2239:M♦ 2234:Ma 2209:M♦ 2204:Ma 2179:M♦ 2174:Ma 2156:) 2126:) 2101:M♦ 2096:Ma 2072:) 2054:M♦ 2049:Ma 2027:) 2012:) 1989:M♦ 1984:Ma 1956:) 1952:• 1925:) 1904:M♦ 1899:Ma 1880:) 1863:) 1845:M♦ 1840:Ma 1826:) 1802:M♦ 1797:Ma 1754:M♦ 1749:Ma 1717:) 1698:M♦ 1693:Ma 1672:M♦ 1667:Ma 1641:) 1622:M♦ 1617:Ma 1581:) 1563:M♦ 1558:Ma 1506:) 1479:) 1464:) 1446:M♦ 1441:Ma 1424:) 1409:) 1387:) 1369:M♦ 1364:Ma 1346:) 1299:M♦ 1294:Ma 1280:) 1265:) 1246:M♦ 1241:Ma 1219:) 1204:) 1187:) 1169:M♦ 1164:Ma 1150:) 1129:M♦ 1124:Ma 1103:) 1087:) 1067:M♦ 1062:Ma 1048:) 1029:M♦ 1024:Ma 996:) 982:) 968:) 954:) 939:) 920:M♦ 915:Ma 878:) 864:) 841:) 816:M♦ 811:Ma 785:M♦ 780:Ma 723:M♦ 718:Ma 700:M♦ 695:Ma 680:) 649:M♦ 644:Ma 622:) 597:) 578:) 555:M♦ 550:Ma 506:M♦ 501:Ma 480:) 460:, 442:M♦ 437:Ma 419:) 401:M♦ 396:Ma 378:) 357:) 322:) 277:) 240:) 222:M♦ 217:Ma 199:) 180:) 149:) 131:M♦ 126:Ma 112:) 3570:( 3506:( 3483:( 3468:( 3454:( 3440:( 3426:( 3412:( 3397:( 3366:. 3359:. 3236:c 3212:( 3158:( 3140:c 3108:( 3090:c 3059:( 3044:( 3025:c 2987:c 2951:( 2934:c 2880:( 2863:c 2840:( 2821:c 2763:( 2748:( 2733:( 2718:( 2681:c 2654:( 2636:c 2608:( 2591:c 2560:( 2542:c 2509:( 2493:( 2477:( 2461:( 2445:( 2420:c 2389:. 2382:. 2267:c 2236:c 2206:c 2176:c 2152:( 2122:( 2098:c 2068:( 2051:c 2023:( 2008:( 1986:c 1948:( 1921:( 1901:c 1876:( 1859:( 1842:c 1822:( 1799:c 1751:c 1713:( 1695:c 1669:c 1637:( 1619:c 1577:( 1560:c 1502:( 1475:( 1460:( 1443:c 1420:( 1405:( 1383:( 1366:c 1342:( 1296:c 1276:( 1261:( 1243:c 1215:( 1200:( 1183:( 1166:c 1146:( 1126:c 1099:( 1083:( 1064:c 1044:( 1026:c 992:( 978:( 964:( 950:( 935:( 917:c 874:( 860:( 837:( 813:c 782:c 720:c 697:c 676:( 646:c 618:( 593:( 574:( 552:c 503:c 476:( 439:c 415:( 398:c 374:( 353:( 318:( 273:( 236:( 219:c 195:( 176:( 145:( 128:c 108:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index