Jump to content

User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Please respect the "In use" template

Hi Derek, you twice ignored an {{In use}} tag on Sex trade in Ghana which I placed on the page while I was busy doing major cleaning up. Both times you caused me large edit conflicts.

Please respect the tag and refrain from editing any page containing this tag. It is used to indicate that the page is undergoing major editing, during which time even a minor edit by another editor can cause significant inconvenience for the editor doing the multi-edit revision. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

0!

Amazing, zero linkrot! Cheers, Derek!

Amazing, indeed. I bet it will not last long though ! Regards, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Right you are! But I have been helping, as perhaps you know.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and every little bit helps. You seem to be using {Refill}, which is fine, but be aware that it does not automatically generate the "publisher=" field. Without this information, the expanded reference is still short of vital information, as the "source document" is arguably the most important part of the whole reference. Using {Refill} means that field needs filling manually. Which is a major reason that I prefer {Reflinks}, as it has the advantage of automatically generating that information. {Reflinks} does have some notable disadvantages though !
Best wishes, as ever,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich. Hardly me alone, but nevertheless it did give me a sense of some achievement. Cheers, and best wishes to you too.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

First, thanks for all the work you do on filling in references. For months, I simply tagged, but have now begun to use the refill tool, which has its limitations. When I saw that you went back over some articles which I had filled in using Refill, and were able to fill in the remainder with Reflinks, I attempted to use it on the next NPP article which I was going to tag. However, I must have been doing something wrong. The refill automatically fills in the reference material (on the ones it can). Is Reflinks similar? If I can do it as part of the NPP vetting process, no sense leaving a tagged article. I try not to make work for other editors. Onel5969 TT me 15:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. As I explained to an earlier query (see above), I personally favour {Reflinks} as it fills in the "publisher=" field in most cases, whilst {Refill} does not. I have often noticed that those that use {Refill} often forget that, without a 'publisher', the reference is little better than a bare URL. I am pleased to see you editing proactively regarding bare URLs, as so many editors seem to think that tagging articles to leave others to do the work is the way forward. Each bot does have its limitations, and you are free to utilise either as you see fit. However, I feel, particularly for those relatively new to the regime, {Reflinks} tends to be the better option. Not least because, when using {Refill} on those cases where there are multiple references, it leaves editors having to use a manual intervention for each 'publisher'. Does this answer your question ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I think I've got it now. Onel5969 TT me 02:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks from Edaham, regarding Thordis Elva

Thank you for cleaning the links in an article I created, and also for alerting me to the fact that I have not been citing references correctly. May I also mention how much I miss the part of the world in which you live. Yorkshire is a nice place. I've heard you talking about a tool for fixing (what I now know to be referred to as) "bare links" on your talk page. I will research this and endeavor to create less work for you in the future. Thanks again for your contributions to Wikipedia and for improving my understanding of it. Edaham (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome - happy editing. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't access reflinks from my location in China (thanks to some heavy handed censoring of the internet) but I did learn to use reFill, which did the job almost as well. I've included links to these tools in a section on my user page to encourage others (The litteraly tens of people who view my page) to use the tools. Many thanks again Edaham (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of meta information

Look at these two edits: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=745687023&oldid=745602633&title=Holy_See_and_the_United_Nations&action=historysubmit&type=revision

Quite a lot of meta information about the links were removed, making them harder to fix. In many cases the link title were removed, replaced only with a {{dead link}} template. This link was actually corrupted: http://www.holyseemission.org/cloning2003eng.htm. You should keep in mind that the information is far easier for human editors to locate when the title, and/or the intention of the original editor, is preserved. Uglemat (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For some reason, it is also interacting with {{Reflist}} and removing parameters, such as |30em. Do you know why this is or how you can stop it from doing that? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure how or why that happens. Template:Reflist states that the 30em styling should be used where there are "many footnotes" (as opposed to without, when there are "few"). What defines either number is not specified. I tend to incorporate 30em at around 20 references or so, but clearly other editors do what they feel like. Certainly IMHO, when there are less than say 10 references, they should not be put into columns, as it actually makes the references harder to follow. The "Reflinks" tool presumably makes a mathematical count and acts accordingly - I have never really thought about it before. Clearly a manual intervention at the point of editing, following Reflinks automatic workings, can either add or remove 30em as desired. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit

Hi Derek R Bullamore,

Thanks for your edit about Burak Davutoğlu article.

It's been in the Articles for deletion here for a vhile. I hope it has contributed to be kept.

Regards,

Frock~trwiki (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Frock-trwiki. Thanks for the thanks. I very rarely pass comment about articles that are put up for deletion, and will not do so in this case. Either way, happy editing,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

List of New York Institute of Technology alumni

Hi,

At List of New York Institute of Technology alumni, could you please add the following:

Under "Science and related fields"

Under "Business"

Thank you so much and best regards,--128.122.91.51 (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The 'Sexiest Doctor Alive' has 1 million Instagram followers and wants to find love".
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/profile/ajay-yadav/
 Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk)

At NYIT, maybe one bare URL exists. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killian James (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Capris

I've never thanked properly for adding all the referencing to The Capris in 2015. The discography has only one citation. Do you think it needs more? If not, the rest of the article is well-enough referenced and cited to remove the cleanup notice, methinks. In the meantime, I don't do no tea, cookies, or kittens. I do Macchiato's, but in your case, have some PASTA, appropriate for the article.

Thank you, whoever you are, for the thanks. I do think the discography should ideally have more than the one reference in that section - but I am too busy elsewhere to try to find any myself. Perhaps a temporary retention of the clean-up tag should reflect that present situation. Finally, to the pasta dish, as that fat bald American might state... Mmm, marinara. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
For practical purposes, I'm the editor who excised all the nonsense from The Capris before you added the refs. Buon gusto! Tapered (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I found the time to add further references to the article and removed the cleanup notice. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

IABot

Hi, I noticed this edit contained a number of errors. For example it put the archive URL in the |url= field instead of |archvieurl=, and it said the publisher is "Webcitation.org" which is incorrect. For link rot you might consider IABot which is a more up to date tool and makes fewer errors. It's available under the History tab in the link marked "Fix dead links". -- GreenC 15:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As a test, I'm going to roll back your edit and run it through IABot and see what the difference is. -- GreenC 15:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ahh it figures something went wrong with the bot on that page. Anyway give it a try on other pages it usually works well. -- GreenC 15:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably me being thick here, not for the first time, but when you say "under the History tab", where do I actually find that ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Derek, I've had issues with checklinks for a week or so. After running, the button says 'save changes (disabled until fixed)' and can't be clicked. I've looked in a few places but can't seem to resolve the issue. Do you know what's happening? Is this issue affecting everyone or just me? thanks Rayman60 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I use {Reflinks} and occasionally {Refill} but not Checklinks, so I am not sure I can help you. Sorry,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ok thanks. if I can't find an answer, I'll get on to the developer Rayman60 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

ref tool

Hi,
Thanks a lot for your edits on Parbhani regarding the citation. Are you the bot's caretaker? —usernamekiran[talk] 22:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am not. I think User:Dispenser is/was the main caretaker for {Reflist}. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I apologise for the previous comment. I did it after waking up, and while still asleep, and under the influence of zolpidem. Sorry. It never happens, i always turn off my modem before sleeping but didnt do it last night. I apologise again.
    PS: the comment was meant for the bot lol. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017, Parbhani

Hi,
After your this edit, something got messed up. "References" section is being shown at the top, with a few references only. I checked the source code entirely, but couldn't find anything out of the ordinary. Maybe it is just my browser. I cleared the cache of page (ctrl+F5), but the issue is still there.

Would you please take a look at it? Also, kindly let me know the problem, as it has piqued my curiosity. Thanks a lot. :-) —usernamekiran (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks OK to me now. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I checked again from a few different devices. All the devices are showing the ref section right after lead. I have attached three screenshots. I use the BlackBerry, and iPad. But the Android device (no login) belongs to my nephew who confirmed he had never visited Parbhani-wiki (his browser history states the same). The issue is quite puzzling. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, I am with you now. Maybe I did not look closely enough before. It is probable that having a reference box in Template:Infobox Parbhani was the cause of the problem, so I have removed it. In addition, I have re-edited the Parbhani article - I think that has done it !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Yup, it has fixed it. Silly me! I didnt think about looking inside the template, i just kept checking the code of page lol. Thanks a lot. :-)
—usernamekiran (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cleaning up an infobox

Hallo, I notice that in this edit you removed several fields from an infobox because they weren't correctly formatted and were producing red error messages. We had an edit conflict there, but it hadn't taken me long to find the infobox template documentation and correct all four of the fields - all used initial caps, one had the wrong name, one needed a "1" appended - and I tidied the website field too. It seems a shame to remove the content an editor had added: if you don't want to try to fix the infobox, why not just leave it alone? It wasn't bothering readers, as the fields in question just didn't appear. The red messages would draw the attention of some passing editor (me in this case) who'd take up the challenge of looking to see what was going wrong and fixing if possible. Removing the fields just ... removed the content. PamD 22:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It was at the end of a very long day, when I was tired out correcting bare URLs and such like. Anyhow, you saved the day, so no real damage done. I wish I was perfect though. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Mercy

Could you please fill in bare URLs at Mercy College (New York). Thank you!--Killian James (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Go to the URLs and get the page title, the name of the publisher, the name of the author, and the date of its publication. Then Fill them in using WP:Citation template. Give a man a fish ... You can do this yourself. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I think I may have completed this task before reading the request and reply above. Either way, I feel it is done. - Derek R Bullamore (talk)

One for the library?

http://www.agramblues.nl/new-paramount-book-of-blues.htm Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Possibly, when I win the Lottery ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi. Please check this out. Thanks--181.110.133.18 (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No thanks - but it seems someone else has responded - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are removing citation info

See here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was working towards re-inputting references, without the bare URLs that existed before. It should look better now. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
And it does, thanks--I didn't realize you were going to make a second pass. Good work as usual, Derek. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Reflist widths removed

Please do not remove the widths from the {{Reflist}} templates, as you did here. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Why not ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

George W. Strawbridge Jr.

Hello. Just letting you know that in this edit you tagged all the Google News refs as dead links, but it appears that they are not dead – I have manually fixed them now myself. I'm aware that Reflinks doesn't automatically fill these in, but I was quite sure that deadlink templates were only added to pages that returned 404 errors. Thanks —72 talk 20:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but they simply would not open for me, for whatever reason, so I assumed they were dead. Anyhow, as you have found them and included full references thereon, well done ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk)
No worries, thanks for taking a look —72 talk 20:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

BareURLs

Thank you for your assistance in tidying up many "bare URL" references I have created in the past. For me it is an excruciating task, but you seem to be a wizard at it! If, when you return from your wikibreak, you would be willing to apply your magic to Draft:GoodRelations, I would be very grateful indeed. Do please WP:NOTIFY me if you reply. Thanks again :) zazpot (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This appears to have now been completed by another editor. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton (Trumbull)

Is Alexander Hamilton (Trumbull) hard to do? I hope you see I work on Linkrot articles, but I don't have the other tool for that, only reFill. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that the source document is in Wikidata - not something I have any experience in editing. Work for some other editor, me thinks. I do see you still working away on bare URLS - although frankly, I much prefer to use Reflinks. It has the advantage of normally filling in the 'publisher=' field. That is something that Refill does not generally complete, and is crucial in completing a full reference source. Happy editing,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I would use Reflinks, but I have had difficulty reinstalling Reflinks. Perhaps we can ask for help somewhere.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I do not know why that should be. Reflinks is here. If it will not reinstate for you, try asking at the Village pump. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I have decided not to use reFill again, but I will try to get Reflinks going again. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

... for fixing all those bare URLs on List of excommunicable offences in the Catholic Church; I tried running ReFill without success, and have replaced my ReFill js with the Reflinks script. It would've been a bear to do by hand; the page was on the copyedit backlog, and I try to clean up in addition to copyediting. All the best, Miniapolis 14:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. I prefer Reflinks, but either bot has its advantages and disadvantages. Happy editing - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for fixing all those bare URLs on Cardi B, I myself have trouble with it, when you have time can you take a look at Punch and Kat Dahlia 1Sire (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome; plus  Done x 3 - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

bare url template

Hi. Seeing that you are like the king of bare url work, I have two questions for you. First, you recently removed tags from two articles, Alahad satellite channel and Adam David Markel. I had purposefully left them as both articles still had a single bare url, albeit to a dead link. Since I hate creating work for other editors, if there are only bare urls to dead links, should I remove that tag? Second, I use the Refill tool, simply because it's simpler and quicker, and then if there are still bare urls, I use the reflinks tool (per your recommendation to me months ago). However, I notice that on at least several occasions, you've come behind me and filled in more links using the reflinks tool. Any inkling as to why it's not filling them in when I use it? Perhaps I'm doing something incorrectly? Although that seems difficult to fathom, since you simply put the article title in the search field. Thanks for any direction. Onel5969 TT me 14:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement ! I do remove bare url tags when there are only dead links remaining. These I reduce by putting [ ] either side of the dead link, and add the {dead link} tag. Others may argue otherwise, but if bare URL tags are left on every article with such a dead link, there would be 100,000s of them around.
Secondly, I have no idea why I might appear to have more fortune using Reflinks than any one else. I do spend much time manually editing articles, such as completing full references for cases including PDF files etc., but otherwise.... Maybe you might like to come back to me with specific cases in the future, so we can compare outcomes.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, will follow your example in the future, as it seems to make perfect sense. Next time I see the reflinks thing happening, will definitely bring it to your attention. Onel5969 TT me 16:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so it just happened on the Demographics of Arizona page. Since I can't use reflinks, I tried Refill, and it showed the fixes, but when I clicked save all I got was a blank page with a # symbol. Reloading the page, the changes had not occurred. Not sure what's going on. Onel5969 TT me 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Reflinks has gone AWOL at the moment, due to DNS's homenet.org domain server being down. I do not know whether this is a permanent situation, but I can not get any alternative to work for me. However, I have been using Refill and it is working alright for me. Indeed, I did a small number of edits on the Demographics of Arizona article using Refill. Quite why we are experiencing different outcomes, I am at a loss to know. You could try posing the question at the Village pump, or perhaps better still at Refill's creator user talk page. Sorry I am not much help - plus I am suffering Refill useage !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Carol Buckley page

Again:

The Carol Buckley page still has a banner on it that says the that "the neutrality of the article is disputed" and that a "major contributor appears to have a close connection with its subject. " Neither of these statements is true. I would like the banner to be removed.

1. Neutrality: many of you have changed the article substantially so that neutrality, according to the changes you have made, must have been achieved by now.

2. My ​"close connection​"​ with the subject: I have never met Carol Buckley. ​ I have talked to her once, 3 years ago on the phone, not about Wikipedia.​ She is not my friend nor do I work for her​ or for anyone​.

I am 73. I have been retired since 2008 from the University of California, where I worked as a ​Java ​ ​computer programmer. ​I have never written articles for money. (I did work for Ardis Publishing in the early 1970s, but not for money). ​Today I get paid by UCLA and Social Security​.

I have never worked for money with elephants or any animals. Now I ​volunteer (for f​ree ​aquarium ​tickets​​) for our local Aquarium. The aquarium belongs to the AZA and they do not approve of sanctuaries. I have no boss​es​​. ​I have no friends who know about or would be impressed by my contributions to Wikipedia.

Your conclusion that I must have some financial or friendship relationship with Carol Buckley is wrong. How can we remove those labels. Starling0616 (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Starling0616

Firstly, I did not add the banner(s) you mentioned, nor came to any "conclusion that I must have some financial or friendship relationship". My only edit(s) related to improving the referencing on the article, such as here. Secondly, it appears that plenty of other editors are now moving the article on. I do not intend to return to it.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ponte dei Pugni

I cannot figure out how there are three inline citation numbers in the Reference section of Ponte dei Pugni, but only one in the article itself.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

It was because all three references were contained within a single ref/ref bracketing. I think it is sorted now. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Cathy Barry

Hi. A few months ago, an article on the famous UK porn star Cathy Barry was deleted with only 3 votes in favour - evidently very few editors noticed. Would appreciate it if you could help, as it seems bizarre that an article on a clearly notable figure can just be deleted on the say so of so few editors?!

92.18.55.1 (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not normally comment one way or the other on those cases which are up for deletion. However, I have improved the referencing in the article. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Just odd that I've seen articles with no actual references stay on Wikipedia for over 10 years, but a referenced article on a famous porn star can get deleted within a few days on the say so of 3 non-admins.

92.18.55.1 (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Big Joe Duskin

You couldn't clear the word, harmonious... guess you had to be there. I was... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiInReAs (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter whether you were there or not. Your opinion, exactly like mine, counts for nothing on Wikipedia. See WP:V and WP:NPOV. That's the way it is here.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Blu-ish, rather than red....

...but this could do with some work some time, if you're that way inclined....  ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I am always that way inclined, but letting that pass for the moment, I have done what I can ! See present article and the talk page. I am struggling to secure WP:NM status for her at this stage. The genre credits for her seem to have blues way down the list, but ho-hum on that score. Apologies for the delay in replying, but cricket watching duties out-trump Wiki at this time of the year.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

About page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Inscription_of_Parthian_imperial_power

I updated the page Inscription_of_Parthian_imperial_power you recently edited. I added new references and updated a broken link.

Please, have a look if the "Refimprove" tag could now be removed.

Thanks!

Cheers,

Starnutoditopo (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of "tweaking" the references, and duly removed the "Refimprove" tag. Well done, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

article for deletion

Derek R Bullamore please look at this, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kelly_Richey and verify it is poorly sourced. I can not understand how any editor worth their salt could vote to keep.174.97.1.181 (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I rarely get involved in articles up for deletion. I take the view of letting the deletion discussion take its course, and see where that leads. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
PS. For what it is worth, AllMusic clearly feels this subject is notable, as per this biography. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Bridgette Andersen

I see that Bridgette Andersen is largely uncited and was probably written by her internet cult following. I'm asking around about what to do. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not aware of this individual as such. Her article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette Andersen, and I feel others should contribute there. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Dead Rock Stars Club

I don't know if you saw this message on that site, in late March... [1]

I guess I owe everyone an explanation. I know it's, a long time coming. My wife is seriously ill and requires much of my time. Thanks to all here for picking up the torch I dropped. I hope to get back to updating the Club but I don't know when that will happen. I still keep track of passings but the research and posting are time consuming. I hope you all can understand. Thanx! Doc Rock

I know we shouldn't be using that site, but it has been a helpful one in the past. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not see the message - how sad. Hopefully it will spring back to life... about deaths... As you rightly state it was a useful resource.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Caldron

Why did you delete the title and author for the Bay Area Reporter article? I have been chided for providing only bare urls, which is what you turned this one into. Did I miss something? deisenbe (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In Caldron (sex club), I think something got lost in my converting bare URLs into full references. Anyhow, I have re-edited the article now, so all should be well. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._N._Ethiraj_Vannar.

Please edit my reference pages. Bare urls already u r edit one reference website sir. Goutham Vannar (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done; although the article does not make much sense. I suggest you seek some help with your English translation on M. N. Ethiraj Vannar. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sir thank u so much. Goutham Vannar (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannar

this is protected page. Some wikipedia admins protected the page sir but these is not a Very important person page simple community page. How to I unprotected the page? Help me & solved my Wikipedia page sir. Solve my page problem sir. Karthick Vinoj (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The page is protected due to previous problems with disruptive editing. As this protection is not due to expire until March 2018, I can only assume that the disruption that series of editing caused was quite serious in nature. I am, like you, just a simple sub-editor of Wikipedia, not an administrator, and therefore have no real power of persuasion over the matter. However, those editors with either 'autoconfirmed' or 'confirmed' access, like me, can continue to edit such an article; which I have now undertaken. (You may be able to apply yourself for either 'status' - see here for general information and assistance). The references in Vannar seem to be in order now. As a more general point, I do not normally "edit on request", although clearly I have done so in this instance. Best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
FYI, this and the one below are both socks of person that was the reason for the protection. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up. I am always a little suspicious of those who ask others to edit on their behalf. However, do not bite the newbies and all that. I note that the sock has now been extinguished. Thanks for the advice.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Rajak_Editing

Sir actually these is not my title. My title was "List of Rajaks" so pls change to my title sir. Karthick Vinoj (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This has already been moved to Draft:List of Rajaks by another editor/administrator. You are free to work further on the article there. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

K sir KarthickVinoj (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Art Renewal Center

There have been a couple editors who have been mass deleting sourced content from the Art Renewal Center WP page. Please help protect this page from disruptive editing. ArtMajor (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am but a simple editor here and have no such powers I'm afraid to say. You will need to ask elsewhere.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps if you posted your opinion about the page blanking on the talk page, it would prove that consensus has not been reached to remove such a large amount of content. ArtMajor (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello sir

One small help These is my first article but my title is not correct https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Dhobi Will u change my correct title "List of Dhobis" in my correct title Gopi ME (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Another editor/administrator has already moved the page for you. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for picking up and improving my article - Valentino Talluto

Valentino Talluto is a bit of a grizzly article to have to edit, not least of all because I created it with all the faux-pas and shoddy editing, which that entails. This is the second time you've helped out with one of my newly created articles. Thank you very much. Edaham (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Happy editing - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

a token of my appreciation

This is specifically in reference to your work fixing my web citations at List of monuments erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I have looked at your changes and am not quite sure what you are doing. Since I have roughly 250 more of these to do and since I can imagine that you have better things to do than repair my next 250 edits can you simply (for I am a simple fellow, especially when talking about computers) what you are doing and I’ll have a go at itmy self. In any case, thank you. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the badge - I will wear it with pride ! My secret - and it is hardly that - is that I use an automated bot (whatever that is) called Refill. You will find it here. Where it says 'page name', fill in the box with the name of the article you wish to edit. I use a copy and paste method to do this, as it avoids typos and the like creeping in. Then press the blue-ish coloured box marked 'Fix page', and hey presto. HOWEVER, it has various inbuilt faults and usually does not complete the 'publisher=' field. This is a problem as without that information, the reference remains effectively "bare". So you need to do this manually when it occurs and type in the information. There is also a field marked "Do not add access dates", which I remove the tick from (in the little box to the left) so that it does, normally, complete that field too. There are other numerous annoyances as you work your way along, but I will not bore you with them at this stage. Give it a try on the articles that have bare web citations, see how it goes, and if you are still finding problems, than come back to me. I am no expert on this Refill thingy, but use it regularly - as I did on the List of monuments.. article. If you look in the "view history" section on that article, you will see my edit is noted as "Filled in 16 bare reference(s) with reFill".
Do this help ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the link-rot and other referencing things there! In this edit, it looks like you converted some {{cite web}} that at least had some data other than the URL (title and/or author, for example) into just the URL. That's going to make it harder to figure out what the actual live ref should be. DMacks (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, probably. I am still trying to work on this one. It looks like a purely manual exercise now to fill in the remainder (assuming they are valid 'live' links). Originally I had hoped that Reflinks might find full versions for some of those that I denuded. Leave it with me for an hour or so. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be alright now. Fortunately for me the majority of the references were dead links, which made the task quicker to conclude. Not such good news for the article though, which has lost about 30% of its valid references that way. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert "Big Mojo" Elem

Nice little article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - it is a long time since an article I created was up for a DYK ! Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
If you have a better hook please feel free to chime in and suggest it.7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Advice, please

See Category talk:All articles with bare URLs for citations and provide your advice.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Robert "Big Mojo" Elem

Thank you. It is the first time since December 2011 (with Little Arthur Duncan) that an article I actually "created" has been amongst the DYKs. It merely proves that I am still alive and, at least on occasion, vaguely useful here. A big thanks to everyone else who helped facilitate Elem's posthumous rise to the front page.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ban evasion

The page "Ban evasion" is my first page (my account name is bauerbach1234). Any suggestions on how to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.49.155 (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The best set of guidance notes I can refer you to is located at Wikipedia:Your first article. Frankly it is not a good idea to try to create a new article if you have limited experience on Wikipedia. Notwithstanding that basic advice, my cardinal rule before I start to look to create a new article is to see if I can find sufficient reliable sources. Either way, you are where you are, so please try to improve the article you have created. As it stands it might not last long without some radical improvements. Happy editing !
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Harold Vyvyan Harmsworth Professor of American History

Hi. Do you know how we would split the list at Harold Vyvyan Harmsworth Professor of American History into two columns please? I think that would make it more readable.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, There is plenty of editing guidelines available at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables. Alternatively, simple columns can be achieved using {col-begin} {col-2} {col-2} {col-end}, with double rather than single brackets on the instruction, and placing text in the spaces between - see Savoy Brown : Guest musicians, as an example.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Derek_R_Bullamore/Archive_21&oldid=1085941305"