This is an archive of past discussions with User:Derek R Bullamore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Yes. The problem was that the "bare URLs" also included a language parameter "(in Portuguese)", which stops the reflinks bot operating normally. I manually removed the language bit first, and ran the edited article through reflinks. Bingo !
Helpful answer. Suppose I have a reference which is not fixed by either of the reference fixing tools. If I strip the reference down to just the URL with, of course <ref>URL</ref>, would that work without problems? I will try it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it should work - whether there are problems or not, I'll leave you to discover ! Cheers,
To show willing I have completed both tasks. However, given that it took me about four minutes to do both articles, is there any reason why you, or anyone else for that matter, could not use the reflinks facility to effect such relatively simple edits ?
Heh. I was actually being sincere; it's rare in my world to see an editor pop in and do helpful edits. (I must be hanging around the wrong articles.) petrarchan47คุก02:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not always easy to spot sincerity from sarcasm in the printed word. However, thank you again - much appreciated.
According to my usual sources, Ecrettia Jacobs was aged 26 when she married James Scott in January 1978 - which gives a birth year of probably 1951. She'd been married previously, in Nevada in 1974. This gives her current age as 63, which matches. But, probably not sufficiently reliable... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Mmmmm... quite a bit older than I surmised from reading the sources. I initially thought her being in the 'class of 1970' was maybe when she joined high school; presumably it was when she graduated at the age of 19 (ish). I'm pretty sure she was married three times from something I read (can't remember where now). Quite where that leaves me, given the encyclopaedia source out trumps a white pages entry, I'm not sure. Many thanks for your efforts though. Maybe some fellow editor will unearth something more concrete and reliable in due course. Cheers,
Greetings, Derek. May I remove a BLP ref improve tag you placed (May 2014) on the following article: Palmolive (musician)? I'm cleaning up some pages, and have added five citations (2 books, 2 web, 1 journal) to this article's references. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Three things. Firstly you have done a great job finding references for the article and this has clearly improved the situation. Well done. Secondly, there remains a number of sentences which are unreferenced, which ideally need sources adding. Thirdly you do not need my 'permission' to remove the tag, although I appreciate your respect in asking me. Happy editing,
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
Hi.
You use Reflinks indiscriminately, the way a blind robot does, and thus turn link rot into low quality citations. In effect, you just cut out more work for us. I do not mind how Reflinks operates or whether you use it or the better alternative, reFill. The fact is, you are solely responsible for your edits and those are awful edits.
Best regards, eh. You rubbish my work, act as an overbearing know-it-all, and criticise me for using a perfectly legitimate tool that Wikipedia seemingly endorses, and recommends its sub-editors to utilise. I do hundreds of bare URLs per week, undertaking work that very few others seem to want to attempt. If the tool is so bad, then may I suggest you do something about improving it or having it improved. As far as reFill being a better alternative, on whose authority, or with what support and consensus, do you make that judgement ? To call another editor's work "low quality" and producing "awful edits" is certainly not acting in good faith, and I deeply resent being accused of "doing something silly". Who exactly are the "us" you are referring to – I see little evidence of others trying to keep the number of bare URL article numbers down to a minimum, or is it some kind of cabal who go around delighting in demeaning other's efforts ?
I presume you will work to improve the referencing on the article in question. Making judgement on one of my edits, out of almost 150,000 in a period of just short of 10 years, is pathetic.
To call another editor's work "low quality" and producing "awful edits" is certainly not acting in good faith
In Wikipedia, everyone except vandals are acting in good faith. Also, trouts are only given to those who act in good faith. (I posted a trout above.)
Who exactly are the "us" you are referring to [...]
Scroll above and read your own talk page. This isn't the first time you receive complaint about the quality of your work. It is not me alone.
I do hundreds of bare URLs per week, undertaking work that very few others seem to want to attempt.
That only makes me all the more concerned. I understand how hard it is to accept that what you have been doing for so long was all for naught. Getting all defensive like this is a natural response.
As the person who added the linkrot to that article, I was shocked to see the strength of sentiment expressed in the edit summary. Codename Lisa even if you feel that you are right, that strength of conviction deserves reasoning as to the differences of the two tools so Derek can be persuaded rationally. In order to do that, I suggest you apologise first to clear the impression of bad faith. Widefox; talk11:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great to me.
Derek, I apologize for the strength of conviction.
Although as I said earlier, I don't mind which tool. Both tools are inadequate; reFill is less so. Please note that upon activating a tool or gadget for the first time, you are prompted with this message:
Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using these features. For more information see our policies and guidelines.
Thank you for listing. I saw your edit log today and I am seeing clear improvements. However, consider this case: rev. 693129408 "Stars and Stripes FC" should be in |work= while |publisher= should have "Vox Media".
Was great to read your information on the group Fantastique. I bought their cd and wanted to know more about them. Cheers
aussiefarmery1@yahoo.co.uk
It is hardly my article; just one of many on Wikipedia which does not have any references to support the text. I merely added a tag to that effect. However, I am pleased you are satisfied with the information. Regards,
Derek, appreciate your work - but you destroyed the links to the EFL website in the last three cites. Your changes mean they no longer work. I mentioned this problem on the talk page of the article and I asked for a fix. We need to find one. Footy Freak7 (talk) 10:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I am not technically gifted enough to know how/why the links are not operating correctly on Donvale Football Club, although it probably is the 'square bracket' that's the the root of the problem. To be fair, they seemingly did not work properly even prior to my edit. Not sure how to fix this to be honest.
Hello. I have done work on all the lists, up to and including List of One Day International matches played between 1995-99. This took me over a hour to transact, although it was more tedious and time consuming than difficult. Can I suggest that you and the rest of 'us' try attempting the rest of the fixtures/results. It is extremely easy to do, and now you have "some work" to undertake, rather than me. It is not the remit of Wikipedia to try to create work for other editors to undertake - not that anyone would necessarily grasp that, given my experience in over ten years here.
Hello Derek R Bullamire! I have seen your work and you can see my work on some article like from 1970-79, 2005-09 and on 2015-19... I can feel that it's time consuming...Well, I appreciate your work for articles and want to say thanks... Yes, I will do remaining work GreenCricket (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in the incomplete references, this is very valuable. Please note however that there are some encoding problems, and some of the titles you picked up look like trash.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that, in part, Wikipedia's reflist struggles to 'transcribe' foreign languages, particularly those using different alphabets. I have done as much as I reasonably can on the article, given that the Russian language is a complete mystery to me. Over to you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Not really is the straight answer. Anyhow I've added my comments on the talk page and smartened up the referencing etc., in the article itself. Will that do ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Just a by-product of using Wikipedia:Reflinks I think. Not too sure exactly how that side of things works, when I am primarily interested in removing link rot. Which I have now done again, but left the 'correct links' to the characters themselves - I hope !
Oh, okay, I understand. I just didn't know. Sorry for any trouble or bother. Have a great day and a great New Year! :) --ACase0000 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you have any information about an apparently British pop band called Driftwood, who, according to this site, had a UK #51 hit in 1972 with "Come Into the Warm"? I don't think they're likely to be the same as the Dutch combo who had hits under that name in the 2000s. My reason for asking is that my print source, Betts' Complete UK Hit Singles, doesn't mention the 1972 record, and I've never known it to be significantly wrong before. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
^Roberts, David (2006). British Hit Singles & Albums (19th ed.). London: Guinness World Records Limited. p. 169. ISBN1-904994-10-5.
gives no such entry. For certain, I would believe Betts and Roberts books. I am a bit puzzled how Shocksteady seems to largely refer to the Dutch outfit called 'Driftwood', who did have the minor UK hit mentioned in the article (as per Roberts). In fact it was my January 2009 edit that introduced that reference !
As an aside, I notice that "Come Into the Warm" was apparently written by Roger Cook and Roger Greenaway. They did not have many duffers back in the day, but the alphabetical index at the back of the Roberts book confirms that no song of that name was a UK hit.
Yes I agree, crap songs generally, and my reference to duffers was more alluding to the fact that the twosome seemed to have plenty of hits, rather than many misses (duffers). I did like "Long Cool Woman...", probably more to do with the arrangement, The Hollies musicianship and general production work, rather than the song itself. On a completely different track, there are some rum names for people - just done a little bit of work on Dale Bumpers ! I half expected him to have invented the dodgems. Hee hee.
Hello Derek R Bullamore again! We are doing some serious work to enlist test cricket matches which are about 3000+..Its took us 2 weeks hard work and still its incomplete...There are many bare references again and we really need your help now..if you fix some bare references of Template:Test cricket matches by year..if? GreenCricket (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello GreenCricket. I think I have done all of the Test Match fixtures/results that have been edited in so far. I trust that will suffice for the time being ! Regards,
Usually both tools fail to fix PDF based citations. I am not technical enough to know why this should be the case, although I think the wording on at least one of the tools does state it can not cope with those. I normally fix them manually - a rather time consuming exercise if there are plenty in the article !
Thank you for your assistance with Open Media, much appreciated. I am only an occaisonal editor and it seems that the referencing standards I picked up when I started some nine years ago don't apply any more.
Might I request just a bit more help? As you will have gathered I don't understand how to use the current referencing tools (but promise to try and find time to learn). I have improved three references in the article (2, 9 and 16): two were dead links, which I have replaced with live ones, and the other was strictly speaking missing a more detailed page reference (although in fact the index of the book has our programme in it so anyone wanting to find the reference would have no trouble doing so).
Much appreciated, thank you! In the meantime I have received a private email from another editor with some suggestions on how to get to grips with referencing (incidentally this editor does not recommend using reFill, which is a relief as I found it rather daunting at first sight). As and when you care to look over the references in other articles I have added material to, that would be welcome as well. But in any case, your help is gratefully acknowledged! AnOpenMedium (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
It is also sloppy not stating which edit you are referring to. It also sloppy to say that Reflinks does not pick up on dates - maybe not all the time, but it definitely does. Also there are many cases where a date is not given. Plus the fact it is hardly the most pressing matter or important aspect here. If your real gripe is with the bot, why do you not challenged its maker/regulator ? You are not the first to negatively criticise me, when I am using a perfectly legitimate tool - one Wikipedia recommends to use. I am not perfect, but I am trying to improve matters with bare URLs all the time. Maybe if you spent more time doing so, and less time criticising other editors, the whole place would improve. As might your English.
hey Derek, i did not mean any harm, accept my apology. youre right i should have posted teh diff.
but whats funny is that the date is still not there .
I have taken it up with the makers. They all say its up to the reffill users ( nuts!), so maybe thats why i posted here. I wont do it again. BTW i am an active contributor to that site (check user contribs plus quality of edits ...) so your hint of criticism doesnt touch me, neither your remark on my english. thanks for responding so promptly to the bare url flag !--Wuerzele (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
There are several issues here. I think generally the other editor has done a good job in removing internal links to dead articles, replacing dead reference links with live ones, and in tidying up the whole article in those aspects. However, WP:LR does specifically state "do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer". In that specific perhaps the other editor has not acted correctly, although I have not investigated how 'dead'/'untraceable'/'never really viable to start with' those so-called reference links actually were. I think if you have real concerns then your best option is to ask the other editor, who I have no doubt has been acting in good faith, and see what the reply is before acting further. Best wishes - oh, and thanks for your continuing work on dead links - unfortunately we are a very small band !
Yes, we are a very small band of Linkrot fixers (you and I may be the only consistent ones), but because I add linkrot tags to articles where I cannot do the fixes, I feel I should do my share on the easier ones.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel your description of "very difficult if not impossible to correct" is about right. They both would take hours of long-winded manual intervention. At the moment, I feel my efforts are better directed elsewhere. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. If we took the linkrot tags off, would someone take the heading literally and delete the category? If not, let's remove the tags.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably, they would. But, not quite the done thing, old boy. Definitely not cricket, as we quaint old English gentlemen say. In a more serious vein, I feel it would not achieve a great deal, apart from in the short term, and then only to mask the reality.
<ref name=dragracing>{{cite journal|last1=Polburn|first1=Aaron|title=It's Not All About Drag Racing|journal=Drag Racing|date=10 February 2014|volume=16|issue=2|url=http://www.dragracingonline.com/columns/polburn/xvi_2-polburn-1.html|accessdate=19 January 2016}}</ref> is a result of running Citation bot, but I do not see what the problem is, if anything. Perhaps subsequent changes since November 2015 (accessdate=19 January 2016 in this instance) have corrected the problem, and the tag can be removed.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It is not a template that you see a lot. Basically it means that, although there is a reference in place, some vital information is missing from that citation. I do not see any problem with the one you quoted above at all, but reference numbers 7, 16, 22 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 40, 44, 46 and 47, are seemingly all lacking full reference source details. I think that those are the issues that need addressing, before the 'Refexpand' tag can be removed. That might be easier said than done in some instances. Particularly because of the lack of information currently therein, it may make expansion difficult. Cheers,
The problem is that while Relinks will not find a problem, the reality is that most of the references are showing only the reference's title. There is no website/publisher, no accessdate, author, etc.; which means that what is showing is about as useful as a bare url. What I normally do in those circumstances is strip those back to the simple url, and let reflinks work its magic to produce a full reference. However, as you found the article, I'll leave it to you to correct. OK ?
I found {{Bare-inline|date=July 2016}} after reference 11. I did the last three references with Reflinks, which did the fixes. Now I will look for {{Bare-inline|date=}} and just do that reference back to bare URL and just do Reflinks on only one reference.--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother, but I believe you recognized some dead links. I have some suggestions to fix that. The only reason I have not done it myself is because I was recently involved in an "Edit War" with another individual. That was ruled on and is over, but so as to not appear "edit happy" I will list the suggestions. I am HAPPY to do the work and fix them if they are acceptable.
For: Uechi-Ryū Butokukai — headed by Buzz Durkin [24]
There is a www.uechiryubutokukai.com/ page but the head of the organization--and he is the head!--Buzz Durkin has a page: http://www.buzzdurkin.com You may prefer the former link since it lists affiliated schools of the organization.
For: Ji Teki Jyuku Association — headed by Ken Nakamatsu[23]
There is: http://uechikarate.org which is the website of Mr. Nakamatsu's main American student and has links to the American dojos. I do not believe Mr. Nakamatsu has his own webpage I can find. The Okinawans are old-fashioned in that way!
For: Kanei Uechi.[5]
This is not controversial. However, you can use the same book reference for [4] or use his other standard book: Mattson, George E. Uechi-Ryu Karate Dō (Classical Chinese Okinawan Self Defense). Brockton: Peabody Publishing Company, 1998, p. 13.
You will notice he does not get the ū of ryū correct in that title :)
I did take a look, but to be honest the subject matter does not really interest me. I suspect it will interest others though, and I would await their comments before proceeding. ?My gut feeling is that a potential reduction in bare URLs will not excite many - as we have seen elsewhere.
Splitting by continet into my sandbox is working for me to fix references. Learning how, but not expecting much linkrot progress.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Derek R Bullamore. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Not really, without more information being available. However, as I mentioned above under the section headed 'List of Internet exchange points', I have contacted an earlier contributor, who may yet come to the rescue.
And another - [2]. I assume that by "half a decade" they actually mean "half a century"!! I've read on Facebook that he died on February 13, but haven't seen a published obit yet. May be worth starting? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I had a trawl around for Bobby "Top Hat" Davis - I do not think he is really that notable. There seems to be more about the death of his non-notable son (shot in 2013) than Davis senior. Is the fact that no obit has been published an indication of this lack of noteworthyness, or merely that usual American indifference towards black blues musicians ? Either way, I'll need more to warrant further work on him. Regards,
Yes, I have that potential reference in my section 'Reds or blues' on my user page. Apart from that, and a couple of others, I really struggled to find anything significant. He appeared to be a street musician - albeit of long standing, but I do not think that that alone is notable. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem was that, although Reflinks would not flag it up as such, there were three bare URLs in the references section. I have edited accordingly and removed the linkrot tag. Not sure the article's subject is that notable though. Regards,
~The Special Wikipedian Tribble Award~ Go forth and multiply, we need more pedians like you!
You're a special Wikipedian in my book. The maintenance work you do for the benefit of the project is a tedious task and your being willing to tackle it is commendable. It's not a simple Tiny TimTiptoe Through the Tulips, for sure. Thank you for the work you did at Theodore Rappaport, and all you do to help clean-up the reference and citation issues to improve the project. Atsme📞📧12:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Are you having problems in adding external links into your sandbox articles, or is it just me? It's very annoying that something goes wrong every time I try to do it at the moment. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not noticed anything untoward - are these perhaps 'blacklisted' sites that you are finding ? Otherwise I do not know what the problem could be. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I have just remembered that I did occasionally get an incredibly annoying "Aw snap" message, when I tried to copy and paste various text/wording into articles (not particularly the sandbox as such). I found it kept on repeating this on the same page. The only solution I found was to close the article altogether, and go away and do something else for a while. Then, when I came back, it did not seem to occur again. Until the next time - on a completely unaffiliated article/page. These events did seem rather random in nature, but I have not suffered from it for a few days now - but that's torn it. Anyhow, I'll give those Yankee Microsoft bastards "Aw snap". What is the matter with "Sorry old bean, there has been a slight malfunction" ? (Minor rant over).
Is that similar to what you have been suffering ? Those useless Microsoft twats even offer a referral service for such occurrences. As if they give a frigging toss. (As above)
Yup, it's mega annoying. "Aw snap" was probably introduced with one of their updates that Microsoft seemingly can not resist foisting upon us. If I ever use one of their 'help' pages, I always tick the box "this did not help me at all" - just for the hell of it. And I would add "you blithering idiots" if only I could, for good measure. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Hi Ghmyrtle and DRB. I believe "aw snap" is an error notification specific to Google Chrome. If it happens 3 times in a row you will be presented with a chance to fill out a feedback form to report it. One editor switched to Firefox after she could not make "aw snap" crashes go away in Chrome. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}23:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation. I may have dissed (I think that's the right term) Microsoft when Google are to blame. Either way, I have been using Google Chrome for some while now, and this "Aw snap" crap seems to be a recent error notice for such a procedure. Having said that, the imagery with it looks like 1980s Microsoft basic (Windows 3.1 vintage). I'm out of my depth on the technical stuff, and am not sure what difference using Firefox would make to me. Mind you, if Firefox does not proffer "aw snap", "have a nice day" or "would you like large fries with that", I might be tempted. Plus, if I discovered Firefox was Noosha Fox's sister I'd be totally sold. Sleep well everyone. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Need your help
Hello! I need your help. Please help us in refilling following articles:
Not sure what 'ping me back' means. Us English old-timers are not always up to date on the modern parley. Anyhoo, as Father Simpson says (I'm not quite decrepit, you see), my work on bare URL cases involves trying to flesh out the references if possible, but I normally accept when the bot states that the link is dead. I do not have the time, nor inclination, to pursue those that may have archived versions available. Let's say I leave that to other editors to follow up. There are so many hours in the day, as it were. No offence intended, but I do what I can. Regards,
I assume you are referring to the section headed "External links modified". In that case, the newer (archived) reference links need checking as to their viability ie. do they actually work, and are they providing a correct link to an archived version of the older dead link. If that is the case, and it probably will be in my limited experience in that field, then the whole section needs editing. Simply replacing {sourcecheck|checked=false} with {sourcecheck|checked=true} will suffice. Is that clear ?
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Derek R Bullamore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Be advised that you take full responsibility for any action performed using these features. For more information see our policies and guidelines.
I saw your edit log today and I am seeing clear improvements. However, consider this case: rev. 693129408 "Stars and Stripes FC" should be in 
.jpg)
Done. How's that for service ?! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
