Jump to content

Talk:Colin Larkin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

The image File:ByrdsCover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of 13 February 2012

[edit]

-- Below text Copied from User talk:McGeddon --

Att: Ms or Mr McGeddon

In forwarding a link to my Wiki page to a prospective associate I was shocked to find that it had been badly hacked on 13th February. In delving further it would appear that you are the vigilante responsible. Your recent edits are misleading and turn a fact-based page into nonsense. The original page was created a few years ago by Pamela Gardiner. The original article was well-researched over several weeks and I had to supply confirmation of interviews and articles to Ms Gardiner, in addition to her asking me if the facts were correct. She was most courteous and helpful and has kept the article up to date.

I have never met Ms Gardiner; I am not related to her in any way. I have communicated to her by email or post. All I know is that she is an academic, a school teacher and a freelance Editor.

Not only have you succeeded in destroying her meticulously researched article, but also your irresponsible and hasty hacking has introduced factual errors that are not only wrong, they are ridiculous, inaccurate and potentially damaging.

I have written to Ms Gardiner expressing my amazement at how you can be allowed to trash what has been a stable and painfully accurate article for several years. I am awaiting her reply as I do not know if she is aware of this travesty.

I cannot think of any reason to destroy a stable and established article unless this is a personal issue.

I sincerely hope this is not the case because I have never met you, and have only your name as the culprit. I also hope there is not a personal issue between you and Ms Gardiner. If there is then you should not be allowed to continue to have freedom of editing, as you are clearly acting in a malicious and unprofessional way.

Given that your hatchet job took approx 3 minutes (between 11.08 and 11.11 on 13th February, and given that I am an experienced Editor, I know that no responsible Editor could do such a task in such a short time. It is insulting that in three minutes you have removed work that took Ms Gardiner many hours over 4 years.

Whilst I find it hard to contain my anger, this is not about self-promotion. You simply should not be allowed to delete facts that are all substantiated and taken from either published interviews, reviews or radio broadcasts and not words from a random publicity company. Your deletions have stopped any chronological continuity and in doing so have created a mess. In my letter I have asked Ms Gardiner to look into this and to reinstate everything you have chopped.

If you disagree I am prepared to speak with you by telephone or email, and in turn I will seek an explanation and an apology for your behaviour. My email is listed on my website, I anticipate a quick response please. 81.149.153.166 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this comment and looked at the article. The edits look good to me, were the result of perhaps an hour's work (not the 3 minutes you ascribe it), and I think an excellent job of tidying the article has been made.
McG removed unreferenced excessive praise and cut back on purple prose ("the twilight world of the travelling fair", LOL!). I am not sure how you could suggest that factual errors have been introduced since I was not able to identify any new material in my review of the edits.
Since you clearly have a conflict of interest, and I feel you are unlikely to agree with my support for McG's edits, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography for a third opinion from an uninvolved editor experienced in biographical articles. Perhaps you would be willing to accept their view on the matter.
Then, perhaps, you will be the one to offer an apology for your unfounded and diatribic attack on McG's rewrite of the article. GDallimore (Talk) 18:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given your accusations of malicious behaviour, I have taken this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography myself. I am also copying this to the talk page of the article in question and suggest further comments be made there in order to secure them in one place. GDallimore (Talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Above text Copied from User talk:McGeddon --

Discussion has continued at User_talk:81.149.153.166, for what it's worth. The factual errors that existed in the article, only partly as a result of my copyediting, have now, I believe, been corrected. --McGeddon (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colin Larkin (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Colin Larkin (writer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and additions and changes to Colin Larkin (writer)

[edit]

"I am not directly editing this article because it is about me. as noted in the conflict of interest guidelines the best practices are that I should propose improvements and corrections to the article talk page and ask that independent editors make these changes"

I have no self-promotion agenda; I merely want this to be up to date and accurate. I would be happy for this to go to a tribunal if you do not think that my case is fair and reasonable.

Paragraph 1. 

. . British renowned music writer and entrepreneur

(I added the word ‘renowned’ because the most recent description in the published essay for the Rolling Stones Box Set - Confessin’ The Blues describes me as such. I also want to transpose ‘writer’ before ‘entrepreneur’ because I am not a ‘renowned’ entrepreneur, I am merely an ‘entrepreneur’, by fact that I have founded and got investment for 5 Ltd Companies. It is for my lengthy writing career that I respectfully claim I am renowned. See attached screen shot below, of blurb on CD package, the same blurb is on the Vinyl Box set and the individual separated Vinyl albums. . . . . and their journey is narrated in great detail by renowned music writer, Colin Larkin I do not think this contravenes Wiki descriptive policy).

Paragraph 1 He is CEO and editor-in-chief of Musopedia Ltd, the company behind Best Things On Earth a multi-media rating site.

(This is factually correct, I legally changed the name from Best Things On Earth to Musopedia in November 2017 – I have the correspondence with Companies House to prove this).

Paragraph 2 ten-volume Encyclopedia

(The spelling must be ‘encyclopedia’ and not ‘encyclopaedia’. None of my 60 separate titles are spelt this way). The moern accepted spelling is the same. See below. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/encyclopedia


Art and Publishing

Paragraph 3 Ditto spelling of ‘encyclopedia’ and not ‘encyclopaedia’


The Encyclopedia Of Popular Music

Paragraph 2 Ditto spelling of ‘encyclopedia’ and not ‘encyclopaedia’

Paragraph 5 Ditto spelling of ‘encyclopedia’ and not ‘encyclopaedia’

Paragraph 5

Over 60 separate titles.

(During our recent house move I have now collected all the titles on a separate bookshelf and there are 61 not over 50. I can send a photo of the bookshelf for you to count if you need citation.)

Best Things On Earth (this sub heading should be deleted to reflect the updated facts below, which should be inserted in its place)

In 2008, Larkin had launched a new website whose original inspiration had come from the All Time Top 1000 Albums, initially called 1000Greatest.com. This would later change its name to become the multi-media rating site and iPhone app, btoe.com Best Things On Earth.[1]. Larkin closed down this website in August 2018 and re-directed the content Musopedia.com

In 2012, on the 50th anniversary of The Beatles chart hit Love Me Do, Larkin was interviewed by BBC Entertainment Reporter Mark Savage about the Beatles' rivals in 1962.[2]

From 2013 to 2017 he was the main contributor of music blogs and album reviews for Quantone Music [Quantone], an in depth music data company.

In 2018 he was commissioned by BMG to write the detailed essay and sleeve notes for the Rolling Stones' curated project Confessin' The Blues.


(The last two paragraphs (( From 2013 to 2017 and In 2018) are significant events and to remove them or not allow their inclusion would potentially damage my reputation and career. The contribution to Quantone was significant with over 9,000 music biographies and album reviews over 4 years. The CEO of Quantone Mr Evan Stein would confirm my contribution to the company.

The final Paragraph, which was removed, is potentially even more important. The Essay and Sleeve Notes to both CD and Vinyl Box set book are over 8,000 words and are the entire content of the Book with the 5 Album box, and also the Booklet with the CD package.

I would like both Paragraphs to be re-inserted as they are factually correct and make my entry up to date).

I hope my explanations above will show you that my motivation is sincere and above all, correct. Colin Larkin (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thank you for engaging on this page rather than trying to edit the article yourself. I think I am "independent", but also interested. Full disclosure: I have several of your books on my shelf (though I haven't counted them). On your substantive points:
  • We cannot accept the inclusion of the word "renowned". We do not, for example, describe Stephen Hawking as a "renowned scientist" (though he was), or Freddie Mercury as a "renowned performer" (though he was). See MOS:PUFF. It doesn't matter if a publisher has described you as "renowned" - it would require multiple independent sources to have the word even used in the main text, but certainly not in the opening sentence. see MOS:BEGIN and MOS:LEADBIO. Sorry, but that's non-negotiable. If you disagree, you could raise it at WP:BLPN, but I very much doubt whether you would get a different view.
  • Writer before entrepreneur... absolutely, yes.
  • I see no problem with the spelling of encyclopedia throughout as you suggest. Though this article should be written in British not American English (as you are British), the spelling encyclopedia is completely acceptable in British English (despite what some other editors may think). On that one, I'm with you.
  • Re "Over 60 separate titles"... I probably need to get back to you on that after looking at more sources. The whole of the section on later activities (post-Encyclopedia) really needs to be rewritten. It needs to be factually correct, but it also needs to be based on what has been written in independent sources (i.e. not by you or your publisher). However, if the changes you are suggesting are minor corrections, they can be accommodated, I think. I'll look at it some more.
  • However, we have no real interest over what "would potentially damage my reputation and career". The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it is independent and neutral. Wikipedia is not - never has been, never will be - a tool for advancing, promoting, or indeed protecting anyone's career. I'm sure you must have experienced occasions when an artist or band has tried to influence your publications, but you would have refused on the basis that an encyclopedia needs to be neutral. Exactly the same principles apply here.
But, in the words of our beloved PM, we are making progress. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference larkincom was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Savage, Mark (7 October 2012). "Chart attack: The Beatles' rivals in 1962". Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 1 October 2018.

Requested move 28 October 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Colin Larkin (writer) → Colin Larkin – There are only two Colin Larkins on Wikipedia; the writer is primary in terms of usage per pageview stats, and he appears to be of greater and longer-lasting significance then the lower league footballer. No need for a dab page when a hatnote will cover it. PC78 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed flattered, and will leave to you experts to decide.Colin Larkin (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colin_Larkin&oldid=1203494631"