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.
You're doing a grand job!! In some cases, you're cleaning up articles I put together in the flush of my youth, when I didn't care about things like references - so I'm glad someone's doing my job for me. Have you got to Josh White yet? - good luck with that one!! And compliments of the seasons to you! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Bless you. I took one look at Josh White and ran - just found James P. Johnson too ! Best wishes for Xmas et al.
Hope you don't take this copyright violation issue too much to heart. I had similar problems some time ago - the thing to do is to make sure that you rewrite sentences and paragraphs in your own words, to a greater extent than you have been doing, rather than cutting and pasting text across - while still retaining the references of course. Keep up the good work anyway, and don't get dispirited - I don't know where you're finding all these blues musicians! Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your uplifting comments. What has happened today has knocked the complete wind out of my sails - six copyvio claims now, and counting - probably more to follow. I hardly know where to start to be honest. I need to look at it afresh in the next few days, IF I have the stamina. Frankly, with all the rubbish that is about on Wiki, I feel I have been unfairly targeted. There again, I would defend my efforts, wouldn't I. If you are at a loss, creation wise, over the next few weeks/months, here is my list of potential blues articles (for a start, I believe they all have an Allmusic biography):
Eddie Mapp, Willie Love (not onanism, apparently), Legendary Blues Band, Bonnie Lee, Sammy Lawhorn, Ransom Knowling, Ralph Willis, Silas Hogan, Shakey Jake Harris (one of the better stage names), Mattie Delaney, Gabriel Brown, Son Bonds, Stovepipe No. 1 (one of the others), Lillian Glinn, Willie "Longtime" Smith, Alfred Elkins, Martha Copeland and Maggie Jones.
Funny thing is, most of my recent DYK's are now copyvios - actually not very funny at all. Ho hum.
I'd like to add my support too - it's great to see these articles written, and they're well-written. But it looks like the wording and phrasing is a little too close to the Allmusic bios for Wiki-comfort. In some cases whole sentences are the same and Wikipedia hates that kind of thing. Theoretically the authors of the Allmusic bios could have a case for plagiarism. It's true that it's a bit galling when there are a large number of hopelessly-written articles out there that barely deserve to exist, yet they continue to exist, while your stuff is targetted. I suppose it's because mediocrity is not liable to any legal action. But I hope that in a few days you have the will to rewrite where necessary and jig things around so that the articles are more your own text, which I'm sure would be every bit as readable and accurate. Good luck, Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Derek - I'm sorry you feel "unfairly targeted" regarding these articles. I imagine it hardly matters to you now, but I declined to just delete the one I found today as a new article because I see a good-faith effort to really add significant, quality content. And I don't think you're trying to violate copyright policy or ignoring it. I will say, though, that despite your assertion that there's plenty of other crap around here - and I totally agree - the problem is that copyright violation is a legal matter. Unfortunately to some, crappy content doesn't violate any laws. Hopefully we can work out these copyvios and move forward. If you can start rewriting then we can move the process along. Frank | talk 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have moved your recently created article to User:Derek R Bullamore/Pete Mayes for cleanup. It is largely a copyright violation of [1] and [2] (both from allmusic). I'm not templating you or deleting the page yet under WP:CSD#G12, but it's a close call. I understand you have made efforts to rewrite the text but it's still too close to the source to avoid WP:COPYVIO concerns. (I see issues with Larry Davis (blues musician) as well, but let's focus on one thing at a time.) Frank | talk 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I must say this is disappointing, particularly considering the time and effort I have taken in producing a series of well referenced new articles. However, matters are clearly out of my hands now, and I will await developments with interest. Taking into account the amount of totally unsourced, opinionated, fancruft and claptrap there is elsewhere on Wikipedia this, at best very highly debatable, so-called copyvio, seems a strange target to me.
There's a difference between well-referenced and copyright violation. I'm not suggesting that your contributions aren't welcome; in fact, I declined to delete the article outright because I don't think it would take a huge amount of effort to fix the problem and retain a good article in the project. Regarding the other stuff that exists elsewhere, you are welcome to deal with those problems as well, but that doesn't impact this particular article. I was patrolling new pages and saw a problem that needed to be addressed.
As for matters being out of your hands now, on the contrary: they are totally in your hands. I invite you to rewrite the article so we can move it back to the main space. Nothing prevents you from doing this. Frank | talk 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Gary Primich with a link to where we can find that note.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Gary Primich saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Frank | talk 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I understand that this scrutiny must be very uncomfortable, and I am sorry for it. I believe that you have been editing in good faith, but you seem to have either misunderstood Wikipedia's copyright policy or, perhaps, the US copyright law that governs it. We are not permitted by policy to replicate or closely follow any previously published content that we cannot verify to be public domain or otherwise licensed compatibly, except that we may use brief excerpts of copyrighted text if clearly marked as a quotation through an acceptable method and if introduced with good reason (some of which are set out at non-free content policy and guideline).
Since copyright covers the creative expression of ideas, not facts, we canparaphrase external sources, but we do have to be careful when paraphrasing that we do not too closely follow the original in structure and language. Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear. As the US Court of Appeals noted in discussing Artica v. Palmer, et al. (970 F.2d 106, 1992): "A plaintiff succeeds under this doctrine when it shows that the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar."[3] Wikipedia's contributors are cautioned here against utilizing great detail in summarizing or analyzing, to avoid creating a derivative work, as only the original copyright holder has the legal right to license derivative works.
There is more about summary in the following on- and off-Wikipedia resources:
At this point, it seems it may be necessary to look at other articles to be sure that you have not inadvertently introduced copyrighted text into those as well. To that end, I am opening a "contributor copyright investigation". Investigation, here, is still preliminary. We have a program that will help identify articles that may need to be evaluated. When that program has finished, it will create a list for evaluators to reference.
The purpose of this is not to embarrass you (the page has been removed from search engines and your name is not used in the header) or to discourage you from participating. Others have been through this process and continued. I hope you will, too. I also hope that you will consider helping to rewrite some of these articles to ensure that the content is not lost. Unfortunately, some articles will likely be deleted otherwise; as valuable as they may be, Wikipedia cannot publish them unless we are sure that we are legally able to do so. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Since some of these listings have come up at WP:CP and brought it to mind, I just wanted to drop you a note in case you wondered about my inactivity on this listing. There are currently 14 open CCIs, and I try to work on one or two a day depending on how much time the regular listings at WP:CP take and how much of an actual life I may be having at any given moment. :) It'll probably be Tuesday before I look at any more of the articles on the list; I'm not sure if other reviewers will be looking at things in the meantime. Since I try to give each one an hour or two, this may mean a flurry of activity all at once followed by around a week of nothing (from me at least). I try to respect the wishes of individuals involved in terms of notification. Since you're actively involved in helping out here (which I appreciate and admire), I'd be happy to let you know after my burst of activity on this page. Of course, I know you may be watchlisting those pages, so you might know anyway. But I wanted to make the offer. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for your note and explanation, which does help me understand why the action has been spasmodic. That's fine though, now that I know. I am happy with my own watchlisting at the moment - but thanks for your offer.
Derek - I hope you don't mind me using your talk page to alert others who may have it on their watchlist of the need to rescue some of the articles you have created and edited.
Many of the articles flagged for copyright violation at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20091230 will need to be rescued and re-edited to overcome the copyright violation concerns. I've raised the question of how best to approach this with User:Moonriddengirl - here. This process may well need the involvement of many editors, to improve and reinstate the articles. If you are interested in contributing to this process, it may be helpful if you indicate below which areas or articles you are intending to re-edit, so that we make the best use of our collective resources. Please do not use this thread to question the legitimacy or otherwise of the copyright violation allegations themselves. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Editors prepared to help in rescuing and re-editing articles
Ghmyrtle - will focus on high priority articles (based on page view stats), esp. of people that I like (!) and/or have edited previously. So far attempted rescue of:-
Derek R Bullamore - will focus on new article re-writes. More latterly, on articles that I have previously spent a considerable amount of time editing.
Hello all rescuers, could you also put update notes at the CCI page? I'm working through the list (in the not-so-good hack and slash way) and would prefer that we don't trip each other up. Anything I've marked with a checkmark will have text removals that could use a look. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, and obviously as of now, that page has been fully updated.
I am responding to your "Talk" concerning Dave Clark's birthdate. I have been asked by Dave Clark to keep an eye on the Dave Clark Five Wikipedia page, and to try to ensure that his correct birthdate of 1942 is maintained.
Other than changing the birthdate back again after it had been tampered with, I hadn't realised that other courses of action were open. I have no desire to incur the wrath of Wikipedia, but what else can you do when false information is given?
Any advice as to what to do in the future would be much appreciated. Regards,
It is never a good idea on Wikipedia to continually counter edit another contributor - whatever the merits of the input. A case such as this would be better dealt with initially in one of two ways. Firstly, you could write to the other editor, as you have to me, asking clarification of their edits, and asking if they have a source for the changes (assuming a source was not provided, as was the case with The Dave Clark Five). Secondly, you could raise the matter in the article's talk page (Talk:The Dave Clark Five), so that it instantly becomes apparent to a wider audience, who may have input of their own. A private edit war (Wikipedia:Edit warring) is thus potentially avoided, your case can be put for others to judge and comment upon, and HOPEFULLY a satisfactory resolution can be found. If not, there are other avenues to explore.
I must also stress again that citing a source for edits is not only a good idea, it often helps to stop editing wars gaining momentum, but, most important of all, it is basic Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources). Perhaps the one philosophy that many inexperienced editors do not appreciate is this (and I quote) - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true".
There is nothing I personally can do - Wikipedia is open to everyone to edit. I believe Dave Clark's own article does now provide some (as per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources) 'evidence' as to the year of 1939. Otherwise, my comments above apply. I am taking a Wiki break now for a couple of weeks, so am unavailable to effect anything until 28 April.
From what I recall when I was last there five years ago, I think the bridge had a gate to it. There is a 3 foot path going down the center of the bridge. According to the links, I think the local womens club tends to the weeding and vegetation. I guess it could be used as a footbridge if one wanted to walk down it, but it's not a high traffic area as there aren't many shops in the area. I probably should go out there again when I am back up at school, but since there is nothing out that way, pictures might take a while to get. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Derek, I just wanted to express how much I appreciate the work you've undertaken and your approach to doing so. In fact, I stand in admiration. :) I have done enough of this kind of work over the last couple of years to know that it suggests an unusual strength of character. So, thanks. You are inspirational. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, that's very kind of you. I will put it on my user page and wear it with some pride. Many thanks.
Yes, isn't it odd how these things tend to come in waves. I haven't started on "Need Your Love So Bad" yet, so I may come a-calling before long. Cheers,
What, so now you get two DYK awards for that article? Where's my star? I'm the one who put it into mainspace! Just kidding, I neither want nor deserve recognition for performing mundane tasks. It is a great example of how a collaborative project works though, people just start pitching in to help. And I'm glad it all worked out.
Another thing I love about Wikipedia is exemplified by the "Need Your Love So Bad" thread above, to which I'm happy to say I was able to contribute precisely zero. No matter what the question is, over almost every conceivable field of knowledge, if you ask around you eventually find someone who really knows a lot about the subject - and every so often you see a response like "I went to the rare document archive today and checked the actual source...". There's some really serious talent contributing here, it's probably the world's biggest consultancy with a payroll of zero. :)
And a note, moving pages is dead easy if the target location is empty, you just fill in some boxes and tick/untick a few things. Even if you do it wrong somehow, it's always easy to fix. The great thing about starting stuff off in your user space is that there's no pressure, you can create complete garble whenever the mood strikes you and fix it up later. Copyvio rules still apply, you can't use non-free images except to test them, you shouldn't use categories - but you don't have to worry about AFD's, you can just throw in bare refs and notes-to-self, you can invite other people to work on it and when you move to mainspace all the history comes along if other people helped on it.
Also, this may be pushing it a bit, but I believe that if you can find a promotional photo of Bassett on say, his label's website, you can upload and use it with the non-free rationale of "from a press-kit" and "identifies the article subject". Or at least it worked for me once. Regards! Franamax (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
You are a 'good egg', as we once used to say in Blighty. Firstly, you should have got a star, barnstar, teddy bear, kitten, cookies, or whatever else goes around these days on Wiki from me for your assistance. I was in a black hole two months ago, and might be again, with the copyvio stuff, and you (plus a few others) gave me a good kiss up the arse. It is just not in my nature to send some a 'cookie'. They do not exist in England (some sort of mid Atlantic sweetness probably, which we call, quite correctly, a biscuit).
You are absolutely right though about throwing a half-baked notion into the Wiki ether. Somebody, somewhere leads you into another, and usually, better place. Funny you should mention "Need Your Love So Bad" - this grows like Topsy - see Wikipedia:Songs.
I have never used my user space to originally create new articles, and I have, very badly, created around seventy or so. Perhaps I ought to have a go. As far as images is concerned, I am the world's worse. A the age of twelve or so, I got a camera with a revolving cube of flashes perched on top of the machine. The only thing I remember is badly singeing my eyebrow taking a photograph. Forty plus years on and I seem to have an aversion to images to this day. I am not very good at doing anything on Wikipedia. However, pictures, photographs, images etc., and avoiding the dreaded 'does it, or does it not, conform to the Wikipedia free image philosophy', leaves me stone cold. I think whatever I did would transgress the dreaded Wiki bogey man.
I laughed my head off at the picture you linked to. I hope it was not you about to fall arse over tit on that mono-cycle thing. The picture conjured up all sorts of images of that hapless rider making a very slight miscalculation and falling flat on his face or arse or both.
Well last time I checked, what you people call "chocolate", we call "sugar with chocolate flavour", so there are some differences. You can tell the difference if you bend it with your fingers: if it snaps cleanly, it's a biscuit (like an arrowroot biscuit); if it crumbles a bit at the breakpoint, it's a cookie (oatmeal cookie); if you have to pull it apart, it could be a cookie, but is more likely a muffin or regular doughnut; if you get goo on your fingers when you try it, likely a tart, pie or jelly doughnut. Interestingly, what I've seen termed a biscuit in the southern US (as in "biscuits and gravy") most closely resembles what I would call an English muffin. :)
My older brother had the Kodak Brownie, we got the cameras with the neato flashcubes. Only Mom and Dad were allowed to use the Polaroid camera but they would let me peel back the foil when the picture was ready and I could change the single bulbs too.
I sometimes wish I could write an article about Peters Players, especially back when musicians showed up for the gig and realized they would be playing in the living room of Peter's big old farmhouse, no stage and no crowd noise, just them crowded into one end and 50 people listening. Two I remember are Colin Linden and Bobby Rush. (And guess who most recently edited that last article :)
Oh yes, although that is a fascinating discussion, which further proves my point about always being able to find someone who knows more than yourself, over this side we would consider "grew like Topsy" rather infra dig. More cultural difference I suppose, a gap which music seems to effortlessly bridge. :) Franamax (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Sandie Shaw
An editor made a correct amendment to the Sandie Shaw page, noting that she did not win Eurovision 67 by a record margin. As the source that is referenced notes, Shaw's victory was the third most comprehensive victory under the voting system used at the time and as a relative margin of victory, is only the 2nd highest in the competition's history. I am not sure why you undid the edit, since the editor was correct based on the source referenced. I have thus reverted your edit to make it correct. TVArchivistUK (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, either my memory is playing tricks or I misread the reference. Thanks,
Just have a look at this. UK humour hitting the rocks in the USA. I'm about to give up. It would be nice if a few Brits or Irish could weigh in and back us up a bit, though. Do please let your friends know.--Storye book (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done my bit. The real problem is that most Yanks think the United States is the whole world, and can not believe other cultures, and humour, actually exist. I see this self-centered approach throughout Wikipedia, and it both saddens and annoys me. For a nation that laughs at I Love Lucy, Friends and Seinfeld, I think they do not understand humour at all.
Cheers and thanks for your contribution. I'm sure it will help support the Guiness nomination. As you see, I had to fight to get that one accepted, and won. But my own nominations are now being ignored. They have no chance of understanding the Monty Python one. Another problem is that Wikipedia administration does tend to attract people who may or may not be on the ASD scale, and of course it is difficult for such people to appreciate humour in any culture, their own included. So I shouldn't complain too much really. They can't help it, and they do good work in most other areas. It is interesting that if you read the official rules for Wikipedia April Fools' Day 2010 here you can see how the so-called humorous content has been adjusted so that such people can identify it and cope with it within their limitations. Such is life.--Storye book (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, humour is a funny thing; either you get it or you don't. Frankly, the original The Office left me cold, so...
Some words of advice, if I may be so bold. Try not to take on Wikipedia as the 'enemy', and attempt to win the war because, chances are, you will not always win the minor skirmishes, never mind the battles. Accept the 'triumphs' for what they are. However disappointing it is when you have spent a lot of time, effort and trouble on something, simply accept that sometimes others will view things differently. I am 55 years old, and trust me as you get older, you learn the wisdom of the years. Put simply, this is "you win some, you lose some". Take it on the chin, think "bollocks, I am sure I am right; but what the hell" and quickly move on. The world is full of folk trying to slay the dragon.
This is hardly Socrates, and you may think I am a silly old bugger not worth taking too much notice of - your choice. Most admins are OK, some are real good eggs, I think. Maybe you will be one some day. Listen, I do not get too bogged down with protocol, guidelines, etiquette and Wikispeak, so if it is in-depth rule analysis you require, I am not your man. I simply do a bit of sub-editing; sometimes pretty badly.
It is not the amount of times you get knocked down that counts. It is the ability to dust yourself down, get up, and face the world again, that really matters. You'll be fine. Best wishes,
No worries, Derek. My friend's son has Asperger's, and I have worked with a number of students who had it - I wasn't using it as an insult - I recognise the symptoms and it's got worked into the system here in Wiki. That doesn't stop those that may or may not be affected being OK and good eggs, as you put it. It's something to be recognised, faced, and worked alongside. It's much easier to deal with once it's recognised, and there are advantages in this medium to having such people on the team. I should add that I'm not making any generalisations about administrators, either, but commenting on an element which exists among others. By the way, I'm flattered that you think I'm young - I'm actually retired.--Storye book (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to do a bit of work on his article. One thing I've noticed is that his birth year is given as 1939, since this edit back in 2006. But Allmusic says 1942. Do you have anything more authoritative, either way? Allmusic also says he was born in Manila, which I think I've seen elsewhere, but again an authoritative source would be welcome. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I did a small clean-up edit on this article, but got sidetracked elsewhere and have not been back. More than happy to leave it to you. Actually, I have not got anything definitive. IMDb [4] states 1939 and Red Bank, New Jersey, but all sites quoting both Kim Vincent Fowley and 1939 seemed to have lifted it from Wiki. I am sorely tempted to suggest it will be 1939 rather than 1942 for reasons you will know. Also Billboard.com, who seem to have a knack of getting most things wrong, state 1942 ! Maybe the usual Wiki cop-out of 1939 (some sources state 1942) may have to be used. Sorry I can not be more specific. Best wishes,
Aha! - this interview with him, this year, has him claiming to be 70, so that would fit 1939. Is there an age when people start claiming to be older than they actually are, to get more sympathy?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well done. To answer your query, I can inform you that I do remarkably well for 83 !
Regarding your recent edit, did you by chance read the article's talk page concerning whether 'all female' was justified. Frankly, I am not really bothered one way or the other, but someone somewhere might challenge your presumption. Best wishes,
Not only did I read it, I wrote the "last word" paragraph! But you couldn't see that, because I didn't sign it. (Just fixed that now!) Regarding the category, it's not the word "female", but the word "all" (in the category name) that led me to remove it. If it just said "female bands" I would be in favour of leaving it in. There does not appear to be an appropriate category for the Slits. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair comment. I'll let you get back to your shrubbery.
You could ask about the differences in capitalisation - but I don't have a sensible answer apart from my own stupidity. Having looked at some other lighthouse articles there doesn't seem to be consistency, but I'd welcome your comments or revisions.— Rodtalk21:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I am at least good at asking questions, if not at providing answers. I am reasonably sure that Wikipedia does not have a Manual of Style relating specifically to lighthouse namings, and either approach would seem appropriate. Frankly it only becomes noticeable in comparison, such as here. I do not know diddly squat about lighthouses or Burnham, but I do know you will have spent an inordinate amount of time and effort putting three articles together, all good enough for DYK consideration - so I am a little embarrassed by my pointing this out. Best wishes,
Derek Thanks for the "heads up" warning about the Man (band) article. I agree that first names are used throughout, and considered changing them myself. The problem is that being Welsh, and a multi-generational band (two sons of members becoming members) there are three Jones's, two Williams' and two Ace's as full band members, and the odd Jones and Williams encountered en passent as well - at one point the line up was Ace, Ace, Jones, Jones and Richards. Conversely, other than John, all the first names are unique, so I ducked the problem. Personally I find "Jones M.'s son Jones G." rather awkward reading compared to "Micky's son George". I know it currently doesn't accord with MoS so please bring it in line if you wish.
I noted your copyvio problems, but, going through separation/divorce at the time didn't have the time or energy to help out - sorry. One thing does confuse me - I wanted to make a minor change to the Dr Feelgood template (so minor I can't remember what it was) but clicking on edit, brings up "Wikipedia does not have a template with this exact title" even tho' I was clicking on the template to try and edit it. Do you know what the problem is? or how the template can be edited?
Firstly, commiserations regarding the divorce. I've been there myself some years ago, and it's bloody awful. Secondly, no problem over the copyvio - I fully understand that you had enough to deal with, and I am still standing. I did not read the Man article fully, but do see the problem over the multitude of common surnames. They (Man) really are not my realm of expertise, so I will leave well alone, but wonder whether using both first and surnames for each musician might be a better solution. Lastly, I do not have an answer over the template problem, but wonder if it is linked to the change in the article's title from Dr. Feelgood (band) to Dr. Feelgood. I'll ask a couple of admins I know, and see if they can mend the bugger. Good to hear from you. Keep smiling.
Friendly admin has sorted the problem. He said "DumbBOT should fix any remaining broken links in a day or so". Now you can effect the edit that you can't remember what the hell it was ! Cheers,
Thanks. I remember Man for the single "Sudden Life" on Pye, which does not seem to have been mentioned in the article. I remember John Peel playing it many times on his Saturday afternoon programme, and I think I actually have a copy somewhere. Rodhullandemu22:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Derek User:Rodhullandemu has sorted the template. As you say I just need to overcome the senior moment, and remember what I wanted to change.
With regard to "Sudden Life" it was the UK single off of Man's first album Revelation (They issued "Erotica" as the single almost everywhere else - even in Angola - but the BBC had banned it). Sudden Life was released on 24/01/1969 in three versions, yellow promo label, blue push out label and blue solid label ........ That's the trouble, where do I stop? and then where do I hang up my anorak? (We have been called Manoraks) Jules' discography on the Manband Archive [5] is excellent, and lists over 400 Man releases on 71 labels in 24 countries - rather more than I would get away with in a WP article. Arjayay (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Alan Vega birthdate
Hi. Could you take a look over at Talk:Alan Vega. While there are many conflicting sources, all seem to boil down to the 'official' biography versus the label. The question is, should we have a conflicted fact in the article? Wouldn't be a prob but we've got a hot-under-the-collar newbie who needs gentle handling. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I have briefly read the discussion, and what is most obvious to me is that there are alternative sources citing both 1938 and 1948. My feeling is that the wording of the article should simply reflect that. We can speculate as to which is correct, but the truth is that both have sufficient sources to be credible. I do not think I can add to the argument on the talk page, although I do understand the seasoned editor(s) frustration dealing with someone new to Wiki who is convinced they are correct. Actually, he may be.... but, let the reader decide.
Thanks for looking in. The editor giving us difficulty, who claims much wider experience than evidenced, is now quoting Wikipedia 'rules', accusing others of bad faith, and going over top with reverts and half-assed refs. Never a dull day. Otherwise it's pretty much resolved. Hopefully some admin will come to the rescue. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Junior Kimbrough and others
Hey Derek, I have taken on a whole bunch of editing and with the photography requests, and my own observations of which musician-biography articles also need photos, I can't take on a new project, but I know you have a few good sources for the same kinds of musicians that I'd normally be drawn to work upon. In short, I saw the Junior Kimbrough article, which needs inline citations and a more appropriate photo in Wikipedia. I was wondering if maybe you might at least give his article a look, and I'll try to find photo(s) for him, if you are willing. Also, there are a few of us who wish to upgrade Rory Gallagher's article that's been neglected until I pulled the cobwebs of it last last fall. He was an outstanding Blues rock artist, and any help you can give in regards to references and the like, or if you wanna join us, it would be great. He never got enough recognition in North America after he developed fear of flying upon the death of Stevie Ray Vaughn's death. He opened for Cream, and Blind Faith, if you aren't familiar with Gallagher's intensity and talent, he was a peer of Eric Clapton. I'd say he's like the "missing link" between Clapton and Derek Trucks or so. I can provide you with a couple great songa/videos from You Tube if you like. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am well aware of both artists. I will take a look at Kimbrough's article first; although I know I have done some work on this previously, so my input may be limited. It may take a day or two, but I will be in touch. Regards,
I have done what I can on Kimbrough. I do not have access to the works cited in the bibliography, which is presumably/hopefully where most of the text has come from. User talk:152.133.8.5 added the bibliography in December 2008 - you could try contacting him. Also User talk:208.72.72.2 has added a far bit of text. Sorry my computer is running at snail speed at the moment. I will move on to Gallagher tomorrow, where I might well have more sources to hand. Cheers,
I have gone as far as my reference books will allow on Rory Gallagher. I hope this helps a little bit. It seems certain to me that a good number of the claims made in the text are urban myths, and I would suggest that these are removed unless others can unearth reliable sources in the near future. The 'Equipment' section is virtually unreferenced throughout, which leads one to suggest that whatever 'truth(s)' it may contain is probably more than counter balanced by fancruft. Best wishes Leah,
In a discography, the full title is necessary, and relevant. I think that in text, which is supposed to flow at least to a moderate degree, the basic title will do. I considered moving the article to simply "Goldtop", since it's 50/50 what the album is actually called. I have it next to me here, and it's mighty inconsistent between sleeve front/spine/back/disc etc. I don't see a good reason to trot out the full title and subtitle every time it's mentioned, particularly within prose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes - ish. You're a good man and a fine editor, and I do not want for one minute to fall out with you. I just strikes me that not everyone may take your 'sensible' approach, and may look for consistency. Actually, it reminds me of someone (probably a couple of years ago), asking if Wiki could accommodate a more general article detailing the ongoing anomolies common in titling/ascribing popular music entities. If I remember correctly, (and I do not, because I rarely remember my name these days) someone else pointed out that referencing such an article might be problematical, not too mention an unhealthy case of original research. But it is/was a serious question - the White Album et al ??!?
Thanks for that. If people get exercised about it, I'll move the article to "Goldtop" for the sake of WP:COMMONNAME. I don't even really see why a subtitle should be in the title of an article, due to its very nature as a subtitle. I agree with you that the policy on this kind of thing is not very clear - I had a look for some guidance on this, and couldn't find any. I was thinking too of OR, and how I could probably be accused of it either way in this case. My opinion is that, in a discography, full article titles are the best way to go, while in article text, full titles aren't always necessary. In this case, the sentence refers to White's Les Paul Goldtop being the inspiration for the album title, so the simple "Goldtop" title is even more appropriate. It's not like it's a change of title, just a contraction, and I don't think consistency is compromised unduly. Some wiki-official policy would be good though. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Dr Feelgood
Unless clearly vandalism, please do not revert other people's edits without explaining why, as you did here. As it happens, I now notice that this information is given later, so your revert can stand, but that is hardly the point. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.28.105 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Rory Gallagher
I wanted to let you know that I've been discussing the upgrade of Rory Gallagher and the members of his band, and Thin Lizzy, with Phil Lynott also being a focal point with some other editors. I noticed that you dropped in on the Gallagher article and was wondering if you would join us on either of these two Irish bands. I'd like to see a Wikiproject in particular for them, and thus far have found three editors who have hopefully decided to work on Gallagher, and another for Thin Lizzy/Phil Lynott which have been horribly ignored, despite their popularity. In addition, two discographers have been helping with the main discography page for Gallagher. I've got a bunch of resources I'm listing on his talk page, and we've also got a bunch of magazine articles scanned on one site which right now is in Rory's external links. Are you interested in joining forces at all? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I am well aware of all three artistes, they were not massive favourites of mine. Can I proffer to help out if your little gang thinks that I may have some reference works to utilise, rather than joining full time ? Please do not think this is my way around "NO". It is just that I found that the work I did on Gallagher's article took up more time than I really intended, and I would prefer not to commit to that extent again. I hope this will be acceptable - you know where I am if your and your colleagues need me. Best wishes,
There is this - but I doubt if it would count as a WP:RS on the Deaths page. So it is true, but for confirmation I suppose you will have to keep searching this page until something comes up. I'll add the blog post to his page anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Greetings & thanks!
Greetings Derek R Bullamore - just want to thank you for all these great articles I keep coming across... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You keep coming across great articles ?! Probably nothing to do with me then ! Seriously, thank you for the encouragement - I try my best in the somewhat, 'wild and wooly', music subject matters. Best wishes,
I notice you have undone my last edits on P.J. Proby. Could you please explain why?
I'm writing on behalf of P.J. Proby. We're talking the biography of a living person here and Mr Proby would appreciate it if he would have a say in his own life story.
Could you please explain what I have to do to be able to make some edits?
Assuming I have got this correct, the gist of your edit is as follows - In 1992 P.J. Proby had five cardiac arrests while in Florida. He subsequently quit drinking and has not had a drop of alcohol since. It took him a while to get back to his old strength. He had to learn to walk again and talk again. Bill Kenwright gave him the chance to recover, while playing himself in the musical Good Rockin' Tonight. He used the audience as a therapy.
In addition, whilst on face value this may appear odd, Wikipedia is keen to ensure that individuals do not have a large say in their own entries. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I am sorry to appear hard on you, but these regulations/rules/guidelines are intrinsic to what Wikipedia is about. You could also have a peruse of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Unsourced points of view, written in an non-encyclopedic style, that aim to unduly unbalance an article are simply not permitted. Otherwise articles would (and sadly sometimes do, until an experienced editor can retrieve the situation) degenerate into a mixture of hear'say, fancruft, and hideously biased codswallop. Please reflect and, if you find it necessary, return to me for further guidance or advice. I would point out however, that I am, rather like you, a humble sub-editor here, albeit one with almost five years and over 25,000 edits worth of experience. I am not bragging here, as I really should get out more, but merely wish to convey my longevity. Best wishes,
As one of the significant contributors to the Chuck Berry article you might be interested that I have nominated it to be listed as a WP:Good article. There is often a delay between nominating and somebody being free to review an article; however, you may wish to keep an eye on it to see how the review progresses and perhaps help out on any issues if you feel you are able. SilkTork *YES!10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
WPBiography tags
There is no reason why the WPBiography tags are put on or left off. Different editors probably forget to put them on. As a rule of thumb I always put the WPBiography tag plus any related WikiProject tag like the WikiProject Wisconsin tag for example if the individual is from Wisconsin. There a bot that usually tags if the person is alive or dead according to the defaultsort and categories-Many thanks-RFD (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've just made a new page on photog Harry Goodwin. I wonder, if you have time, if you could give it a once over for style - things like placement of references etc. and make any copy edits you might think desirable. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, congratulations on a fine piece. I have done a few bits and bobs of copy editing - more pedantic than truly necessary to be frank. I must admit I had not heard of this individual, but what a great life story. Well done. Have you thought of putting this forward for DYK ?
I think there are possibly two or three. If it were me, I think I would try - DYK that Harry Goodwin photographed every single act that entered the Top 30 of the UK Singles Chart, except for Frank Sinatra and Elvis Presley ? As the DYK page states " make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article." I reckon someone reading that hook may think - how the heck, or why the dickens did Goodwin do that, and hopefully in you draw the potential reader. The process to put forward an article is not difficult - even I can do it - and there is the possible potential of the reward of seeing 'your article' on Wikipedia's main page for several hours. And you get a 'certificate' if successful. If you need anything further, then you know where I am. Best wishes,
Well I won't hold my breath in that case. One thing I didn't include in the article was his age, The Bolton News article dated Jan 3 2009, says he is 84 - do you think its safe to say (b. 1924) ? I it was his birthday on Jan 1, 2, or 3 they'd have mentioned it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The Independent article quotes him as saying he was born in 1924, so I just added it. Sorry to butt in! Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have added an info box and taken out the stub tag - all these tweaks should help the DYK chances. Be patient dear boy, the delay in processing potential DYKs affects everyone. Cheers,
In which case a citiation needs to be included in the article to this effect - otherwise readers using the cited source will not see the so-called chart posiitons you have included. Personally, I think these are incorrect - the UK chart is/was a Top 75, so anything over that number is "made up". Anyhow, this is a widespread problem, and I have long since lost the battle.
I have carried out a major edit/clear-out/re-write of the article Brett Marvin and the Thunderbolts following concerns felt and tags applied. What I have done, and the reasons for it, are detailed in that articles's Discussion page. As a more experienced editor I would be grateful if you could cast your eye over the edit, and make any further changes that you feel necessary. I have removed some of the previous tags but you may feel that some further tagging may still be appropriate. Many thanks in advance for this.
Yes, well done, that is a much more balanced article than what was there before. I am happy to leave things as they are for the time being. It does desperately need references, but I suspect they may be hard to find.
I am hoping that you can give advice on something that appears to me could be a of a rather suspect nature in Wiki band articles.
To take for example The Members article that I hope I carved into shape to some degree: the info box listed 'Members' and 'Former Members'. Feeling that this separation was in some way a device to raise the low profile of those few who are at present running under the band name, even though the band's popularity, prestige, touring and recording was historic than current, I lumped everyone who had ever played in, and were part of, the band under one heading 'Members'. I think this was the right thing to do considering all the unseemly jostling for limelight that existed in that article.
This separation between former and present members seems fairly common and gives me the uncomfortable feeling that infoboxes could be being used, in a subtle way, to promote a current line-up that may not contain many, or any, members from times when a band had its most historical importance. An example of this is of course The Searchers, well-known for the fact that no original members still play with that band, whether or not they own the band title; ideed it could be said that the present band running under that name is a heritage/covers/tribute band. Do you have a view on this? Does Wikipedia within its proscriptions cater for what might be seen as subtle promotion for a current version/line-up of a band that may have little reference to original notability?
Many thanks,
I'll give you (Acabashi) two or three 'answers'. I have been here a long time, and the squabbling over who is/was a band member, their real significance in the overall scheme of things, and, most pertinently, who tries to solicit a favourable position in an article, is nothing new. It is particularly prevalent in 1960s groups, although this does spill over into the 1970s and beyond. Obviously for a band that has been 'active' for decades, it is likely that there have been personnel changes, but I do agree that often the 'classic line-up' members can get short shrift. Part of the problem is that the syntax for info boxes splits between 'Current members' and 'Previous members', which sometimes rather helps (albeit unintentionally) those trying to 'make a point' or 'promote their relevance'. There are other methods employed, sometimes far less subtle, in promotion of one faction against another. Frankly, without due diligence (and trust me this problem is not unique to The Members or The Searchers) it can get completely out of hand. Try [6]; [7]; and/or [8] for just three examples of such in-fighting.
Secondly, I do not think there is a simple solution to this, as each case tends to be somewhat different. However, almost without exception, you can guarantee those trying to 'promote' are transgressing verifiabilty, reliable sources and often COI. Hence that often tends to be the way to nullify their edits.
On the question of proscriptions to counteract this, then I have not come across anything specific, although an admin may be able to point out some edict that might help. User:Ghmyrtle is on the button, as usual, with his timely comments about seemingly no conclusion/agreement/concensus. Typical Wikipedia - a committee trying to design a racehorse and, in attempting to accommodate or placate all parties, ends up with a camel !
One final thought. In a more general sense, I prefer to flag up some reasonably well researched citations/references etc., that support the NPOV, balanced Wiki case, which helps to exclude 'excess'. What we have with both The Members and Brett Marvin and the Thunderbolts is a real shortage of this, which rather weakens the case for the defence. As does the state of Keef Trouble and Jona Lewie - somewhat interrelated to Brett Marvin et al.
Many thanks for te information Derek. It all seems more complex than I thought. I'll bear what you say in mind. Acabashi (talk)
Jesus Jones
Hi Derek. I noticed that the recent edit you made to Jesus Jones' page left an incomplete sentence: "They are best remembered for their " ... I've deleted it for the moment: any idea what you were intending to say...? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dom. Three thoughts - A. I should be shot and, thus forever banned from Wiki, for being too old and daft not to notice such a cack handed edit. B. Actually, the thought that they are best remembered for ........ is probably a fair description; and C. I think/hope/pray I have corrected my previous nonsensical effort. Time for bed. Best wishes,
Greetings Derek R Bullamore – Could I put in a desperate plea get you to rally round over at New Orleans Records and a bunch of other articles that are up for AfD by the same editor. Doing me best to be politically correct against all odds. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, old bean. A bit slow to react here, what with being away on a mini holiday - anyhow, I see others seem to have rescued the situation. Best wishes.
Hi, Derek. The slow rotation has turned again, and I've located a few additional issues. Most notably, I'm afraid that The Real Thing (group) looks like it need to be rewritten. Text first introduced in the history section seems to have been drawn from [9]. I've tried to find some evidence that they copied from Wikipedia (does happen sometimes), but I just haven't been able to confirm that. Later material is drawn from AMG. Anyway, while there's no rush on the others, I figured I wanted to drop you a line and let you know about the activity since this one has been listed at CP. I'll review a few more (try to cover some ground), but I don't want to overload you at one time. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello again. I've been away for a few days, but belatedly note your comments. Thank you. The Real Thing were nothing of the sort anyway. I hope you are well, I'm still beavering away (like a good boy) when I can.
Hi Derek, could you please be so kind as to have a look at this and tell me if I'm completely wrong in my opinion about that label's notability !?! StefanWirz (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Stefan. Sorry, I am a little slow in responding here. I notice you had a real battle to keep the article 'alive' and just held on. Well done. Best wishes,
Hi Derek! I've been suggested to talk to you. I had this conversation earlier with Ghmyrtle. I added inline references for The Artwoods article since it had the 'unreferenced' template on top of the page. Mainly referenced, didn't change it much. Maybe you'd like to give your opinion, too? Thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Elitropia,
Sorry for the delay in replying, but I have been away for a long weekend. The article looks just fine to me, and you have done a very good job adding in-line citations. Overall the article now looks better than many others covering more high profile acts ! Well done, and you can feel pleased enough with yourself to have a go at plenty of other such cases. Best wishes,
Whilst the addition of any reference source is to be applauded, in my view there are still too few cited sources for the amount of information in the article. For example, there are two paragraphs with no referencing at all. Others may feel differently, but in my opinion the BLP header should remain, until one or three more reliable sources are added. For another example, go compare the referencing in the gold star rated Bob Dylan article.
Hi Derek. I don't know if this would be within (or near) your area of expertise, as i'm not sure how much you focus only on British artists, but there has been quite a bit of back-and-forth over the years at Tracie Spencer over her DOB, as you can see at the history. Do you have any knowledge or wisdom to add? Cheers, LindsayHi17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Lindsay. I do not focus solely on British artists, but tend to have information/knowledge mainly on those who have made headway in the UK - which Spencer did not (a couple of very minor hits in the UK Singles Chart). So sorry, I can not really add anything to assist on this one. I do notice that Allmusic cites 1976, and the fuller name of Tracie Monique Spencer here -[10]
Thanks for the enquiry though - always pleased to help if I can.
Well, thanks for looking, anyway. Allmusic has been cited in the past, as have a couple of other sites, but a user and a couple of IPs have tried entering other dates, on and off. Thanks again, Cheers, LindsayHi07:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
My experience on similar WP:BLP cases, for what it's worth, like Sarabeth Tucek, is that it's often best to leave birth date blank. People do have the right not to publicise it if they wish. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghmyrtle. That is what i've been doing (not i alone i hasten to add); it seems the best way to go when there is dispute such as this one. Cheers, LindsayHi14:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
British hit cover versions in the 60s of US R&B songs
Hi Derek. User:Sabrebd has started a new article at British rhythm and blues, and I've suggested it would be good if a list could be added to that article setting out which British chart hits of the 60s were cover versions of US R&B recordings - the Moody Blues covering Bessie Banks' "Go Now", that sort of thing. I've been trying to think if I've seen such a list anywhere, and haven't come up with anything. I'm sure collaboratively we could all come up with a good list, using our various sources, but I was wondering if you could put your finger on such a list existing anywhere? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again - I should know your bloody name by now (I can't address you as Mr Myrtle !) This is an interesting one. For lists of affliated stuff there are List of blues-rock musicians, List of blues-rock performers, List of R&B musicians, List of blues standards, List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK) and the article Cover version. Otherwise I am racking my brains a bit - it's frustrating because somewhere (and I do not think this is on Wikipedia or in my library), I vaguely believe I may have seen something along the specific lines of your query. I don't recall it being very comprehensive though. All that very slightly worries me at this point, is veering towards original research without some definitive source document(s). That and the fact that I am not a great lover of lists - in my experience they tend to be an open invitation for some editors to add all sorts of nonsense.
You have reminded me that I am supposed to be merging the first two lists I gave you, which broadly cover virtually the same ground. I wish my damned memory was sharper these days - I may come back with something better in a day or two ! Or not. Best wishes,
Aha! You have to use your investigative skills to find my name (you could probably also find my address and bank account details if you tried!) It's not secret but I'm not telling you! Clue: go to the bottom of my user page, and click! So far as the list is concerned, I don't think it would offend WP:SYN - but, if it does, we'll do it another way. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have only just looked at the British rhythm and blues article itself. A fine piece of work from the two of you. Well done, Guy - I'm not quite as daft as I appear !
Could you possibly do me a favour, if you're around here next week? My (greatly expanded} article on Mike Raven, aka Churton Fairman, is up for DYK, and I'll be away, so if you could keep an eye out for any issues that may emerge, I'd be very grateful. He had an amazing life - talk about being spoiled for choice with DYK hooks! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Will do my best to oblige, but I am away myself between Tuesday and Friday next week watching Yorkie Porkies playing Notts Clots at Headingley. Good article on an astonishing varied life, by the way - should surely make DYK without a fluster. Best wishes,
Hello, Derek. I recently reviewed my (first and only so far) Wikipedia article, on the Dorset-based folk/rock band, "The Dolmen". You added a banner that indicated the article could be improved - "Wikified" - and also something about relevent links. I do apologize, but as a 'newbie', and looking over the definition of the term "Wikified", I am too inexperienced, I'm afraid, to understand which of the many suggestions within 'wikified' might be applicable to the article in question. I was hoping you might be able to detail exactly what might be done to improve the article and/or bring it up to standards. Perhaps this is me being lazy a bit rather than figuring it out, and if you think so, please let me know :D and I will study a bit more. But I do appreciate your review, and hope that I can learn something helpful thereby for this, and any future article I might undertake.
Hello Ceitidh - forgive my ignorance but I guess your username is of celtic origin. Perhaps the easiest way to answer your queries would be to point you towards the 'blue links' in the banner. For example, the 'wikified' blue link takes you to a glossary of terminology, with further links to other useful Wikipedia articles and guidelines. That should help you to add relevant internal links to the article, and perhaps check some of those that already exist for their relevance. In the latter case, the link to 'Chris Jones' in the info box leads to a disambiguation page, wherein probably none of the Chris Jones listed bear any relevance to The Dolmen. Equally the link to the Crabchurch Conspiracy in the discography may have historical significance, but does not presumably give any light on this band's album - I have not checked this through, but you get my drift.
In addition, do all the citations listed in the reference section actually work as an external link, do they provide further insight to the band's article, or are all (or some of them) worthless ? There appears to be more red links than blue ones. How does that help the reader ? Also, depending on just how new you are here, the blue link to 'quality standards' may assist you in assessing this article against the preferred Wikipedia standards of styling, layout etc.
Wikipedia is a big learning curve, so please do not be put off. If you will take my advice just concentrate on one element at the time, and try to master the basics. Things will start to fall into place in time. You could also try reading a 'featured article' such as Bob Dylan. That may help you see how much referencing is really needed to radically improve articles, but more generally, give you ideas about layout and formatting.
I hope this helps you. If not, please return and I will ask my wife - she was a teacher and a nurse in her working life - so may be more able than me in imparting knowledge ! Finally, my old mucker Ghmyrtle (as above) has offered his assistance too. Best wishes,
Gentlemen, thanks very much for your input. (Derek, "Ceitidh" is what Scots grandparents called me as a child so it seemed fitting herein, although I am a native of the American South; many of us in this part of the country being descendants of lines from your fair land.) On topic again, may I say that, for one as neophyte as I, your comments are most welcome. As you pointed out, the learning curve is indeed big. I'd actually call it huge, in fact, and since this is something done in 'spare time', a tongue in cheek phrase in this modern world, I'm a long way from becoming an Adept. You mention the red and blue links: interestingly, I wondered why some seemed to magically appear - for instance, Chris Jones, who is a drummer for the band, just turned 'blue' the minute I added his name to the current lineup, as did "Crabchurch Conspiracy", for which there was apparently an already existing article of the actual incidents known by that name (which by the way, to my knowledge, was coined by Mr. Vine himself as the title of his book). All that said, I will go back and see if I can delete any linking as you suggest, that may not be appropriate, and will most certainly check the other internal links as they were, at the time I inserted them, working. (This, all dependant on whether I am reading rightly your suggestions. Much study ahead for me, weekend nights, no doubt, as the people I work for rather think I should pay attention to them 8 to 5.)
Also, if Mrs. Derek has any suggestions, would be glad to have them- left-handed and right-brained as I am, it may be that someone with a teaching/medical background would be able to get down to apples and oranges as is often needed to facilitate my understanding!
And Ghmyrtle, how nice to know you are familiar with this band. Any advice on fixing this up is very much appreciated. (Which CD do you have, if that is not too 'non-neutral' a question? :D)
Now, on to Robert Zimmerman...
Thanks again.
Wire
Hi again Derek,
I see you added a ref into Wire (band) - wherever there's a band, there is Derek - hats off to you. I idly came across the article and thought I'd casually correct the odd typo and grammar error, but me being me, the thing developed a life of its own. Quite a bit of editing I'm afraid, with reasoning in the Talk:Wire (band). With you being completely experienced as to what should be what, (grovel,) can you have a look to see if I've gone too far? If I have, please revert any of it.
I'm not quite sure of the etiquette as to how to proceed with swathing edits. I have left comments on some articles' talk pages before grand editing, where those articles appear to need major overhauls, asking for opinions from other editors. Few if any, (apart from you and Ghmyrtle,) get back or helpfully jump-in, even when I request feedback in the User Talk Pages of others who have edited a particular article. What is one to do in that circumstance? - an article could stay flawed, (in my opinion,) for ages, if the bull is not grabbed by the horns. I have a tendency to resent wasting my time, and toward impatience :)
Hello again, and thanks for the kind comments. I think on face value (I have not checked every single amendment you made, but took an overview) you have done a fine job. Unless someone is bold, then these articles flounder around in a sea of hogwash and hear'say forever. Your approach both with messages on talk pages, contacting previous contributors, and then simply diving in and trying to enhance an article, is quite the correct way to go about things. To be fair, those who have editied in 'hogwash' in the past are unlikely to be much use, and I could name you the few regular, reliable, trustworthy editors steadily working on pop music articles, on the fingers of one foot. You are seriously in danger of adding to that small list !
The biggest problem on so many articles is the lack of references. This, almost inevitably, leaves the field wide open to those who can not resist adding their own opinions - often in a pseudo rock journalistic style, or, as if there are writing to a fan page. I know that you are far removed from this, and I can only applaud your approach. Until such time as a serious editor challenges you, I would urge you to continue in much the same vein. Specifically Wire are more legend than substance, which is part of the reason that they are harder to source than many other bands of similar stature.
At times, I get totally fed up of reading complete fancruft bollocks time after time, but all I/you/the small band of like minded can do is beaver away trying to improve. I doubt most level headed people will find much fault with that.
One final thought - if you feel that a sentence or paragraph is completely unsourced twaddle, particularly regarding to living people, then take it out. To quote Wiki guidelines - We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Yes, well done. Looks like Unterberger could not be bothered to do any research. Obviously you did and it paid off handsomely. Never heard of this lady, I must say. I see you have put her up for DYK. Actually, could you do me favour ? I have two in the queue for DYK - Kip Anderson and Johnny B. Moore. I am away watching Yorkie Porkies playing Durham Dunces at Chester-le-Street this coming week. Could you keep an eye on my DYKs and see if you can answer any queries that arise. I am slightly concerned that Kip Anderson's hook may cause a problem. Well done again, and thanks in anticipation.
Do any of your sources have any information on the (probable) death of Dorothy LaBostrie, co-writer of "Tutti Frutti"? All I have is this blog post - which looks plausible, but not definitive. There's also confusion over her year of birth - some say 1928, others 1938, and very little circumstantial information to go on. Hope the cricket went / is going well! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Cricket went very well. We beat Durham (last year's county champions) by four wickets earlier today, to move to second in the table. Really interesting, intriguing game too - well worth the visit. Sadly I can't help you on Madame LaBostrie. I looked into details about her several years ago for my, then, radio programme, and did not uncover as much as your recent article does. It seems odd if she has died fairly recently, that there was no obituary anywhere. The best I could find suggests November 4, 2007 here - [11], but it is hardly conclusive. Sorry,
Hi Derek. I'm obviously being particularly thick tonight, but where on that site did you find a LaBostrie reference - it doesn't seem to be listed alphabetically, was there a ref number? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Guy, sorry I should have said - ref no 000087.
-I don't know what you're talking about. Don't accuse me a vandalism. You point out the supposed "vandalism" I did before you start throwing around accusations. Americus55 (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Many apologies. This is the edit page I saw - [12] and I jumped to the conclusion that the vandalism was from your edit. Investigating further, following your protests, I see it predated your input. Very sorry, I must look further next time.
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.
. Articles marked 
have been checked and are presumed to be clear of concern. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Manfred_Mann , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
