User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Hi there - I see you cleaned up a couple of incorrect links to George McCrae. This is good, but you shouldn't just remove the link in such cases - the best thing to do is to disambiguate the link, even if there isn't a correct article to link to at present. I've changed those two to George McCrae (politician). Cheers — sjorford++ 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

7th March 2009

Dear Mr Bullamore

Of the "Five Pillars" - Pillar 3 quotes:

"Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community"

I am trying to edit the info box you created but some of my editing will not be recognized -I am following the syntax methods used. Is there a "protect" in place, or am I missing something? - I don't wish to keep chasing my tail?

thank you in anticipation Sirpercyblakeney (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Sir Percy B

Thank you for your note - I trust my response will reach you here. I am well aware of Pillar 3 and, after nearly three and half years editing Wikipedia, I am used to seeing my edits edited and re-edited. No problem, particularly when they improve the article in question. I am not aware of any 'protect' in place on Marmalade, and would have thought that the info box is open to re-editing the same as any other. You are correct in pointing out that syntax applies, and operating outside of these may be the cause of your problems. Frankly, without knowing exactly what you are attempting, it is rather difficult for me to comment/advise. All I would say is that the article on Marmalade has been subject to some rather clumsy and opinionated efforts in the past. These appear to be more about scoring points off other editors, and/or promoting editor's own opinions and beliefs, rather than actually improving the overall article. It is sadly lacking in reliable sources throughout; something I have been meaning to have a go at rectifying - but not really got round to yet.

I wish you well - particularly if you are looking to find sources to back up your intended edits.

Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

---

I did receive your response thank you

I think part of my edit problem was “operator syntax error” which I think I’ve solved, although, as an exercise, I did try to swap around and edit and categorise the order of the “current members” and “past members” sections as an alternative presentation idea - which I was, and still am, unable to do so

I am not aware of the “rather clumsy and opinionated efforts in the past” regarding edit additions. I guess, as WKP is an open forum, everyone has their own ideas to offer – “Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required.”

With regard to “reliable sources”, I would reference point to the collection of the bands album history liner notes, on general album releases from CBS, through Decca, Castle and Sanctuary Records releases, which all appear to tell the same story, a lot of which seem to be direct quotes from band members - “straight from the horse’s mouth” if you like. I presume these sources should suffice? I note one of the albums is already reference listed - if I have time, at some point I’ll add all of the others.

thanks Sirpercyblakeney (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

---

It was semi-random; it was one of those pages I got to after a couple of clicks from elsewhere! I know virtually nothing about the band, so won't be able to do substantive editing, but I'll certainly be happy to support you if you want to do something about the lack of properly referenced material! One thing that did come to mind straight away was the article title: if they moved from Dean Ford and The Gaylords to The Marmalade, then why are they under "Marmalade (band)" with no definite article?

As for cricket: well, quite. Loganberry (Talk) 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that; it's definitely Marmalade, without the 'The'. Well, probably (as I am more than old enough to remember). Do you know I once, as a wicketkeeper, tried to throw the ball straight back to the bowler, and it went right over my head and seriously disturbed the slumbering third man - happy days. I may well come calling again. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit? WP:CAPS is quite clear on the matter: "the" should not be capitalised unless it is the first or last word in a title. In this case it is not.

P.S. I note a few of your recent edits have been to move links to redirects to links directly to the article; per WP:R#NOTBROKEN, not only is this unnecessary, it adds load to the Wikipedia servers and can cause more work in the long run.

Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I merely moved/re-directed etc., the article's links to the most recent styling of that article's name. I am sorry if I have caused offence or additional work - this was not my intention at all. Please feel free to re-adjust the article title and links accordingly. Apologies,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, sorry I was abrupt (it was probably because reverting good faith edits without an edit summary like you did to mine can appear rude; your response is ample demonstration you didn't intend any offence). No need to worry, everything is either fine as it is, or can easily be fixed. The thing about redirects is just for future reference; it's not terribly harmful, but it's a shame to waste time doing something which is actually a little bit unhelpful. Thanks, --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Besause, believe it or not the average editor can spot problems without a hit and run ugly splat from one of ye guys. Please, for all the 10 templates ye advise us of, ye could fix 3. Banners fix nothing, they are only an other ugly html headace. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to pull out the Peacock words from the article, balance a photo from ELP on the page, and my computer froze just when I was transferring articles. Could only save and return when I could. Damn, you got me in like, 2 minutes from when it happened too. Maybe there is something to E.S.P. who knows? Sorry 'bout that! --leahtwosaints (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Derek - had to alter your Allmusic link on the NBZ page
Although the link you pasted in was correct, it did not link up (not using MS Internet Explorer anyway)
I think this is due to the Allmusic URL having vertical bars in it, ie NINE|BELOW|ZERO which cite web misunderstands, as it uses the bars to separate different fields (quite appropriate really!)
I have had this problem before, and there may be a clever fix, but the only way I found was to use the old Ref [external link] system, so have done this to NBZ.
Don't know if you have used cite web with any other Allmusic URLs with vertical bars in them?
Arjayay (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but the canonical way to fix this kind of issue is to use the HTML syntax "|". Where this won't work – particularly in tables – use {{!}}. So one would write

• {{cite web|url=http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=NINE|BELOW|ZERO&sql=11:k9fixq85ldae~T2|title=allmusic ((( Nine Below Zero > Discography > Main Albums )))}}

to get

• "allmusic ((( Nine Below Zero > Discography > Main Albums )))".

Hope that helps --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It helps me greatly as I was blissfully unaware that there was a problem. To be fair I have posted dozens of links to Allmusic over recent months, and it is probable that this difficulty exists elsewhere. Just when you think you are helping Wiki to improve, eh?! Thank you gentlemen, I am older and wiser. My only defence is that I was unaware of any such pitfalls, and more generally the Nine Below Zero article looks better now - he said, blowing his own trumpet (ridiculously out of tune). Best wishes to you both - for myself, sackcloth and ashes for the rest of the week.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem and don't be too hard on yourself; slightly malformed references are an awful lot better than no references! --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Derek, please can you help to watch the Foundations page. It seems that Mr Huffman is back to his usual tricks again. Thanks (George-Archer (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I know - here we go again !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I see that you made a rollback that did not rollback blatant vandalism. Please bear in mind that rollback is a tool for fighting obvious vandalism. Please be more careful next time. For more information, please see our rollback guideline. Thank you for you time. —Mythdon t/c 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mythdon. I almost take your point. However, what exactly constitues 'blatant' or 'obvious' vandalism ? Here we have an IP address (rarely good news), on his/her first edit (not a good sign), who deletes a whole paragraph, which was referenced, without any explanation. Granted the paragraph relates to 2007, and thus might be somewhat out of date. Nevertheless, it seems to me (POV, I know), that is probably still relevant for an artist from the 1960s, that is seemingly still going strong. I do not want to bite the newcomers here, but it immediately struck me as an act of vandalism. Or, put it another way, how does the article which I have spent considerable time and energy trying to enhance, actually benefit from this deletion ? It was a judgement on my part, taking into account the evidence. I may be wrong, but I was not careless. Incidentally, I notice my rollback has been undone (more 'vandalism'?) Huge apologies if either you, or indeed User:76.211.117.19 is Mr. Hyland.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not Brian Hyland. Blatant and obvious vandalism's in which either A) Replace the enrire page with something like "KKKDKKDLKADDSDAS!!!!!!!!!!", "[Person] is an/a [profane word]!", "HI!!!!", "MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!" or "[Person] (in CAPITAL LETTERS) SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!". Also, adding a small addition of phrases to a section like "hi", "i luv u" "[person] luvs [person]", etc. —Mythdon t/c 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am raising this with you because you were involved with this page recently. Could you please take a look at the last paragraph. It seems to me to be a collection of unsourced grievances. When I put the page together originally, I tried to be careful to source everything, going so far as to contact one of the litigation lawyers directly to clarify facts. It was from that discussion that I found out about Payne's later business activities in relation to performance DVDs. It seems to me that those with specific grievances should be in a position to reference specific litigation, at a minimum. On this basis, I suggest that multiple cautions be added to this last paragraph, if not that it be deleted entirely. I am not doing it myself because I am not entirely certain of the protocol here, and this entire page has been subject to a "deletion war" in the past--initiated, I suspect, by Payne himself.

Many thanks in advance for taking a look at this.

Dreadarthur (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Dreadarthur. Frankly, this is not a subject matter that I am in any way familiar with. My minor edit was purely to correct the link to The Chi-Lites; rather than a serious attempt to add anything to an article/subject that I really do not know anything about. However, having read the piece, specifically that last paragraph, it is obviously unsourced and POV. I think/know you are perfectly within Wiki 'protocol' to delete this paragraph in its entirety. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and specifically, and I quote:

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it:

I hope this helps. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your suggestions. I have deleted the entire last paragraph on the page and conveyed my reasoning to the primary contributor to this paragraph.

Dreadarthur (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your English usage is very good. However on your user page you state "de-linking too much links in a sentence". Replace 'much' with 'many' and that's just tickety-boo.^[2]

Too save you the trouble - adjective British, old-fashioned informal; as it should be; correct; satisfactory [C20: obscure origin]

Very best wishes (and give my fond regards to beautiful Amsterdam),

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Fixed! Thanks for your advice. Can't believe I missed that! When I re-read it, "too much links" looked so silly.

Kind regards, --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 09:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S.

Amsterdam isn't that beautiful right now. The day before yesterday it was Koninginnedag (Queen's Day), a national holiday. The streets are filled with piles of garbage! It was fun though.

Sorry for my double post! I got a "servers down" thingy the first time around, so I hit save page again. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 13:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If I understood the news correctly, you nearly lost Queen Beatrix on Queen's Day. That must have been a fright - at least the nutcase causing the mayhem lost his life. Kind regards from dear old Blighty.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Always wanted to expand that article myself, but never got the energy for it. At least I can stop the unsourced speculation, fancruft and bollocks from now on. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I always worry when the 'message notice' appears, in case I have deeply offended someone. Your missive is just what my soul requires; so thank you again. I must now work on his albums etc., to see if we can get the article uprated to 'C class' or beyond. By my measure purely, nay massively POV, Joe Jackson is sorely under-rated; but it needs a measured and balanced approach to set out his case (not too much gushing twaddle to spoil the broth). Thanks again and my very best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to thank you for your energy on the article, but it seems someone else beat me to it!! I put two photos on the page, and can get more, but unfortunately, from the same date. Oh, another thing-- when my computer got digestion, in the midst of feeling my way through the Carl Palmer article, you were most kind and sweet in the way you asked me to review it, and fix the problem-- a talent lacking in plenty of others here. Blessings! --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, on both counts. Your user page states that your life is "racy", and closed to prying eyes. The nearest I got to racy was watching Formula One on the television, and I fell asleep ! Best wishes from dear old Blighty,

Derek R Bullamore (talk)

You may be interested in this arb case.  Frank  |  talk  22:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As it says on the "songs by artist" category page, all single-artist songs and albums should have an artist category. I do intend to add the rest of the songs, eventually. Katharineamy (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have just rewritten the Ranking Dread article and wondered if you wouldn't mind mind checking in British Hit Singles whether he had a hit or not in 1981, as detailed on the article's talk page. Several newspaper articles claim that "Fatty Boom Boom" was a top ten hit in 1981, though I can find no record of any hits using online chart sites, and I suspect they are just re-reporting someone else's mistake. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Michig. As you suspect, Ranking Dread did not appear in the UK Singles Chart at all. I think the confusion may be connected with the song "Fattie Bum Bum" - a No. 8 UK hit for Carl Malcolm in 1975, and a No. 34 success (as a cover version) for The Diversions the same year. Both were one-hit wonders in the UK. I will not reply on your Ranking Dread article's talk page to save duplication - good first stab at the article, though. Hope you are well, and best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking - it did apparently make the top 10 of the Sounds magazine Disco 45 chart in 1981 but clearly a false claim has been propagated and exaggerated over the years. Regards. --Michig (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Derek! Do you have any information on the date (or indeed year) of birth of Sky Saxon of The Seeds? There are citations for both 1937 and 1946, but no clear consensus. I thought you would be the right man to ask! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. No can help, I'm afraid - to tell the absolute truth, I've never heard of him ! Sorry,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

..!! Well, you ought to listen to "Pushin' Too Hard" at least - a 60s garage band classic! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My word - you've killed him ! - [1]. That's a horrible coincidence.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know - hope I'm not responsible for a curse. On that basis, who would you like me to edit next?! (BTW, I've just started Wee Willie Harris - contributions welcome!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ermmm, Girls Aloud, Westlife, Boyzone, Take That - any of them really. No, wait a minute; ALL of them. LOL. I will have a look at Mr Harris, if you would care to take a peek, when you have the time, at my recent efforts on Lonnie Donegan.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do when I get a chance (I keep being distracted here when I should be offline...) "Tom Dooley" (on 78!) was my first ever record purchase, so Donegan has a lot to answer for! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I added a bit of text, category and a couple of references to Wee Willie. Hope this helps.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've tweaked a couple of the refs (if you put in <ref name=....> at the beginning, you can repeat the ref by using just <ref name=..../>, with the slash, for the later refs, so they're all listed together at the end). "Formerly a pudding mixer..", eh - sounds like a contender for DYK perhaps... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything, honest! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't hold out much hope for Mr. Harris, either ! Two or three things. Why don't you try for DYK status for your new article ? The 'pudding mixer' sentence quotation was almost a direct lift from the NME book, so it should be acceptable. I have no experience of putting forward an article for such a citation - but why not have a go ? I've upgraded (maybe) Wee Willie a bit, but I hate to follow on the coat tails of another's fine efforts by trying to look smug. I take your point, thank you, over the referencing. However, I am unsure, when there are completely different page numbers from the same publication that I am referencing; whether your suggested method - which ultimately quotes just the one page number - is sufficient. I really don't know. I also slightly worry whether the deletionist squad may decide that Wee Willie is not notable.

Finally, on the subject of your 'curse'. What was the first record you bought ? Oh yes, "Tom Dooley". Let me quote you at least part of the lyrics - "Hang down your head, Tom Dooley. Poor boy, you're bound to die" ! I suggest you change your on-line name to Tom Dooley or the Grim Reaper, and please do not edit any of my music heroes ??!!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - Wee Willie is in the DYK queue - I've got a few through there before now, and I don't think there should be an issue over notability, but they may question some of the website refs. If you like, you could do me a favour by checking progress at Template talk:DYK#Articles created/expanded on June 24. I'll be away for a few days, so I'll find out when I get back! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply re. the above. Firstly, I should say that I'm in B'ham, so to all intents and purposes I have the same UK bias! Shalamar for me begin and end with Daniel, Hewett and Watley. The rest is something I wish we could gloss over!

I've nearly finished creating pages for the individual albums - amazed it hasn't been done before - just have the last two left (just for the sake of completeness it must be said - who on earth would be interested I don't know, I just listened to them again at the weekend for the first time in I don't know how long, and boy, do they suck big-time! Products of their time I suppose. Having said that, I listened to Watley's first solo album again recently as well, and that's nearly as bad. It sounded great in 1987 but is virtually unlistenable today. Whereas the superlative run of albums from Big Fun to The Look are just as fresh and exciting to me now as they were way back when.)

Shalamar's career is the US and the UK interesting to me because I'd say they peaked in the US with Three for Love and thereafter interest fell off - at precisely the time they became huge in the UK. Back in the 70s, exactly the same thing happened with the Stylistics and the Chi-Lites, and then to a lesser extent (as they were never *that* big in the US) with Odyssey too. Some parts of the story are a bit murky to me: for example, at which point exactly were Daniel and Watley recruited? Before or after the release of the Uptown Festival album? It's reasonably certain they didn't sing on it, but did they promote it, or did their involvement only begin with Disco Gardens? It's a similar thing with the post The Look break-up. I used to have an Old School music channel on YouTube (before all this obsession with copyright vio kicked in and vitually every personal music channel got suspended!) and had some interesting comments left there by people who seemed to know what they were talking about, indicating that the basic problem was bad feeling between Hewett and Watley (which apparently persists on Watley's side to this day), for reasons which can only be categorised as rumour and speculation, so would be best off not even hinted at on Wikipedia!

Anyway, regarding a rewrite, to be honest I'm still a rookie and winging it to an extent with Wikipedia. Is there any way I could submit a proposed rewrite to you personally without actually changing the article as it stands or putting the whole thing on one of these pages?Draggleduck (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can. I was not a big fan of the band, although two or three tracks do stand out, and largely stand the test of time. Invariably with these manufactured groups, often totally relying on others for their music, once the well is dry they quickly revert to third rate material, and soon after, fifth rate line-ups. I think the relative lack of solo success, shows how utterly reliant the trio were on other people's talents. Having said that, most acts have their time and place, that 15 minutes of fame. Unless, of course, you are Elton, Cliff, The Stones etc. I will make two points for you to consider. Firstly the more references you can find, the less likely the article is to succumb to vandals, and / or those that 'think they know better'. Secondly, stick to the basic facts - I so often see a half decent article punctuated with "The Blah Blah album was funkier and better produced than the Splodge album etc.", without any reference to back these statements up. They are, almost with exception, personal opinions, or the product of highly selective editorial memories.

I believe you are correct by the analogy with the Stylistics, Chi-Lites, Odyssey, even Chic to some extent. However, whether this was coincidence, or otherwise, I suspect you will not find a reliable reference to support, one way or the other.

As far as murky areas are concerned, I would restrict yourself to that which is able to be referenced (see Wikipedia:Verifiablity); even if those references seem to lead you away from the 'truth'. A referenced 'half truth', 'lie' or 'total bollocks' is, somewhat bizarrely, far better than personal belief. By the way, I hope I am not telling granny about sucking those eggs.

To date, I think I have added all the references in the main article; so I might be pushed to find much more from my own library (see my user page for the list of publications). Nevertheless I am happy to assist as far as I can. You can write to me via e-mail, if you prefer (again, see my user page for details). Over to you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As somebody who appears to be interested in song articles I thought you might like to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/coverversions and make known your feelings on the matter. Regards. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have now contributed; for what it's worth ! Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably took out more than you intended, but seeing alcoholism in there unreferenced... Shouldn't be too difficult to verify and re-add. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and many thanks - although I suspect that this might not be the end of it !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

earlier this morning I listed this article as a problem at WP:BLP, perhaps you would like to add some weight to the argument. FWIW, I think on balance the anecdote is true, but still stand by verifiability. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a line at the noticeboard. Having thought further, I suddenly remembered that I have had past correspondence with Robert Young (aka Robert Parkes) on another subject - Ivy League - several months ago. Similar stuff; adding unsourced material, based upon his own memory of events, coupled with a touch of self promotion in the wording. See also Polly Brown where, surprise, surprise his virtual non-involvement still manages to get an unsourced mention. Like to bet who put the wording in ? I intend to see what develops elsewhere from our joint efforts, and will keep my powder dry for the time being.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Been here before, check out the talkpage at The Bachelors for a laugh! --Richhoncho (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The chart positions were taken from Joel Whitburn's "Billboard" chart books. I have updated the page with these references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noozgroop (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Splendid - a good source, to which I do not personally have immediate access to. Nevertheless, well done, and thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way Derek, if you do ever need any info from the Whitburn books - Top Pop Singles 1955-2002, or Top R&B Singles 1942-95 - just drop me a note and I'll be happy to help - they're on the bookshelf next to me right now...  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a good man - despite what they all say about you ! I may well come calling in the future. Many thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk)

Can you confirm that Dean Friedman's only U.S. hit was "Ariel" ? Equally that it spent around five months in their chart(s) ? User:Manway hints, sort of, otherwise on the article's talk page - which I notice you contributed towards some 16 months ago ! The usual reference thingy for both / either / neither would be useful - either inserted in the article, or given to me to do the same. Thanks. On a completely different topic - could you have a look at recent edits to The Boomtown Rats article. It seems to me that it has gone downhill since the 15:36, 29 June 2009 edit. You may note that I have challenged User:Mark Boyle on his talk page over the recent changes - without response to date. Sorry, I have hopped a long way from the Mary Popcorn heading. Anyway, mucho,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Best to leave messages on my talk page in future I think. Anyway, Dean Friedman (who I had/have a soft spot for, and saw live in Exeter in the late 70s some time...) - yes, "Ariel" was his only US Hot 100 hit, entered chart 16 April 1977, 22 weeks on chart, peaked at # 26, on Lifesong 45022. I'll go and add it to the article. Boomtown Rats - I'll get back to you! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC) PS: Actually, I'll leave it to you to make the edits you want - looks pretty much OK to me unless you're doing a full discography.  :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Derek.. I believe I had (may still have) a photograph of the Boomtown Rats which I think is what brought me there. I think wasn't it a site where someone used an individual musician's template, instead of one intended for a group? Or it seemed that way to me. You may as well tell me of my errors here, now. Please, make it swift, as it's been a horrible week for me. --leahtwosaints (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello - no need to panic. It might have been your photo that got you there, and yes you did tidy up the template and some wording, but no picture added / removed. Which is all fine, and definitely no error to report from me. I just thought you might have an interest in the band, beyond photograph(s), and could have a look at more recent edits. To me they look the work of someone who is trying to get his / her own point across, without much viable substance. I am unfair in asking you about edits from two months ago. If anyone quizzed me concerning something of mine from two hours... two minutes... no, two seconds ago - I might go - "What ?! - did I, REALLY ??!". It's my age. Sleep well, or wake up well, wherever you are. Tomorrow's just another day. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. I improved Shirley Bassey's discography, so I took the tag out you posted. Please have a look, and I hope you like it! Best, --76.198.234.254 (talk) 09:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I realise, and appreciate, the effort you have put in to greatly improve the visual aspect of the discography. There is no doubt that the wikitable approach is far easier on the eye, rather than a long list, which, however well researched and fullsome, still rather looks like an errant shopping list. So, well done. However, my concern was the lack of references in the article - something you have not addressed. I am not being unduly critical of your input - but reliable sources to back up the details presented are still missing from the piece. As such, I have reinstated the tag. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Derek, it was the re-improvement tag. Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 15

42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to slightly disagree. It was the {Refimprove} tag - which reads 'This article needs additional citations for verification'. It still does.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your're right, I appologise. Best,--76.198.234.254 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Five months ago, you indicated justifiable dissatisfaction with the state of Mental As Anything. For the last week or so, I have attempted to edit the article with a view to supplying RS and NPOV. I have left the Neutrality disputed 'plate as a hat notice: when you have time could you view the article and remove the 'plate if appropriate.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow - that is 100% better than before. I have not checked the history page, so I will give you full credit for the improvements. Seriously, well done. I have removed the POV tag. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but co-credit to Dan arndt as indicated at Talk:Mental As Anything, regards.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I write with regard to your recent edits where you change all British nationalities in biographical articles to those of the constituent countries, seemingly based on birthplace and nothing more. Please read Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom#Changing an existing UK nationality and note that this is "strongly discouraged". You are without doubt introducing errors, given that birthplace is a poor indicator of nationality, and there are countless examples where such a change would be thoroughly incorrect, such as Tony Blair. More evidence is needed before such changes should be made. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. I could not strongly defend any of my recent alterations - although I suspect those who posted the original 'nationality' might have difficulty in defending their own choices. Citing 'British' is often such a cop-out. Anyhow, I will move on, expecting flak from all quarters ! I hope you are well - regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, "British" is easily defendable / verifiable and "English" / "Scottish" etc is much harder to verify, and totally unverified in many of these cases. "British" may be a cop-out to you, but it's undeniably true, all these people being British citizens. Making a stab at narrowing it down not only adds nothing, but may very well be incorrect. You don't know how many of your changes were correct and how many were not. Thanks for your good humour though! Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Derek
I hope to start an article on Gary Fletcher, bass player of The Blues Band. Have you got a DoB? All I can find is "early 50's"
Arjayay (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry, I can not help you here. I have details for Tom McGuinness, Paul Jones, Bernie Flint, Dave Kelly and Rob Townsend; but not for Mr Fletcher. I can only assume this info has never been leaked. Nevertheless, I look forward to your article appearing - mind you, I do notice The Blues Band piece itself is not very revealing. Trust you are well, and sorry again,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying - I agree The Blues Band article is poor - but there is nothing on Fletcher at all, so I'll start there.
Arjayay (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one possible solution would be creating one separate discography article for all Steve Harley related releases and leaving only a link for it in the two articles in question. It could be simply named Steve Harley discography although Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel could also be used so tell me what you think. As for the prose sections I don't really know how to treat that matter. Fortunately, some other user saved the album article so at least we don't have to worry about that. Pietaster (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I did not get back to you previously, but I have been away on holiday for a few days. I notice you have split the discography off as a separate entity, a decision which I was going to endorse anyway. I will have another look at the two articles text, and try to avoid duplication between the two. Thanks for your efforts.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Andy Kim's Biography and Year of Birth: Corrections that have been made by myself are per the LIVING ARTIST Andy Kim. If anyone has a discrepancy, please contact Andy Kim and he will confirm all data. As to the various birth years... you will find from 1932 through 1952 listed in many different websites. I, for one, see no reason to get in a fizzle over a birth year... I personally feel an artist has no need to give a birth year in a biography at all. But since this is the subject, the correct year is 1952... any discussions I have seen here are assumed and not factual. Until one knows the facts about another's life, assumptions are meaningless. Please feel free to email Andy Kim with any questions: andy@andykimmusic.com He will be happy to answer. On a side note: Andy Kim is getting a bit annoyed with the irresponsible changes to his information on Wikipedia, especially due to some coming close to libelous. If entries can not be controlled then Wikipedia will be asked to remove the Andy Kim page and any other pages connected to the name Andy Kim. (Betbytes (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Betbytes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betbytes (talk • contribs)

Thanks for improvements to the Benny Bell article. Many of these changes are welcome. However, I'm concerned that some overlinking has been introduced. According to the MOS, common words likely to be understood by the reader, and not connected to the subject of the article, should not be wikilinked. I believe this includes some words you linked:

• CD -> compact disc
• English (lyrics) -> English language
• record -> Grammophone record
• signature tune (well, maybe that one is okay)

Also, you put a "citations needed" tag on this: "Some albums have new spoken jokes edited into breaks in older songs as "asides", a technique Bell had been using since the 1950s, and some songs contain comic interruptions made over several decades." I didn't want to add a lot of detail to the aricle to explain what this means, but some of the older recordings are were transferred from vinyl to newer albums or compact discs, and sometimes there is an "aside to the aside", where the first "aside" has Benny speaking in a younger voice, with surface from the original recording still audible, and the second has him speaking in an older voice, and the surface noise abruptly drops out. Do we need to explain all that?

You also put a "citations" banner at the top of the article. There have been recent complaints at the Village Pump about how doing this degrades the readability of the article (I can't find it right now, maybe it's archived?), and it has been suggested that using the "citations tag" instead of a banner at the top, is less intrusive. Does the banner refer only to the one CN tag you added? If so, I'd like to remove the banner. If there are other issues, they should be spelled out somewhere, such as the talk page. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, at least one of the Knights who say "Ni".

I could point you in the direction of the Bob Dylan article. Gold star rated - it contains eleven internal links in the opening paragraph alone, including those to singer-songwriter, painter, poet and anthem. Overall it has literally hundreds of internal links, so comments about so-called 'overlinking' are often a puzzlement to me. I do not want to be pedantic, but indulge me for a moment. The Collins English Dictionary lists "cd" as, variously, the abbreviation for cash discount; symbol for candela; abbreviation for command (paper); the chemical symbol for cadmium; abbreviation for Civil Defence Corps and Corps Diplomatique; as well as compact disc. Equally English can apply to the official language; the natives of that country; (and indeed relating to either entity); a size of printers block; or even the U.S. / Canadian expression for side (in billiards). "Record" has twenty four such variants in common usage.

The point being that all is not quite as straightforward as it might appear. Secondly the citation tags, both after a sentence or at the top of the article, are meant to allude to the indisputable fact that that sentence, and the whole article, is short of references. Just three in total. Equally, I do not believe that rants at the Village Pump necessarily change basic Wiki guidelines - not that the latter are always crystal clear. This is probably why sub-editors often haggle and argue over such matters; as is the case here. I think some of the guidelines can be interpreted in so many ways as to be counter-productive.

Now, having got that off my chest - phew - please feel free to re-edit Benny Bell as you feel fit. I promise that I will not run off crying to a higher authority. Frankly, having done around 17,000 edits, if I followed up every one by checking on subsequent edits, I would not have time to eat my dinner ! Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not an edit warrior, and I try not to be a PITA. About overlinking, I've seen many articles where links like these get added, stay around for a few months, then get taken out, so I have come to look at them as non-productive. About the explanation for the "asides", does this answer your question about it, and do you think the article still needs fixing? If so, how, without making it an unnecessarily boring explanation (like the one I wrote here)? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know, I have been around here for almost five years, and I do not know what a PITA is ! Is it that inedible soggy cardboard, that some insist upon wrapping around equally uneatable rubbish, just because it is vaguely fashionable ? My wife says I'm a grumpy old man - she is probably right. I take your point about linking. I would suggest that Benny Bell is not normally subject to many genuine edits as to really make much difference. The question of "asides" is another matter, and your explanation enabled me to comprehend what he was doing. Logically, therefore, it would do so to the casual reader. What concerns me is that, however well written, we are treading the path of original research, and not addressing the dire lack of third party references.

I know how difficult it is to find reliable references for those on the boundaries of the music industry. Many, many vaguely similar articles will never expand beyond a stub type status without this, which is a real shame in my eyes. However, trying to 'manufacture' text to expand such articles is not at the heart of the Wiki philosophy. I am happy to work with you on trying to expand Mr. Bell's article, but feel, not for the first time, that we may be trying to draw blood from a stone. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the abbreviation, possibly not as universal as I thought: PITA = pain in the ass (abbreviated for politeness). --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any info on her date of birth, etc.? This doesn't have anything - but you may know better! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The only O'Hara I have is the former, in both senses of the word, Fourmost singer, Brian O'Hara. I suspect Mary must have been born around 1954, but that is as far as it goes. Sorry,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, her sister was born in 1954, but I don't know about M2OH (as we fans call her!!). Never mind...thanks for checking. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The site which the reference to is currently not working, and the reference tags weren't set up right, revert and look for yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.73.96 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The correct reference for the site is http://punkmodpop.free.fr/generationx_pic.htm, although on close inspection it does not really qualify as a reliable third party reference. Initially it would have saved some time and effort if you had placed a message in the 'edit summary' box, so that every editor was aware of the reason behind your deletion. Please also sign your messages to other users (using four tildes [ie 4 x ~]). Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems the site still isn't working properly, it only works when www. isn't added.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.73.96 (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

All the flags i have changed are correct Chev Walker-if you look into his page he is interested in representing Jamaica Justin Morgan- Welsh international Mick Vella- Maltese international and so on121.217.119.29 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will give you one example. Justin Morgan was born in Australia, and considers himself Australian. His Welsh RL representation has all to do with his parentage, probably grandparentage, and not his nationality. I suspect, without checking, that the others you mention have a similar story. I will accept you were misled, rather than acting maliciously - however if you can find a reliable third party source (Wikipedia:Verifiabilty; Wikipedia:Reliable sources) that proves his nationality as Welsh, then I will eat my hat.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, Derek. Many of the new articles I've done have a recurring theme, in that they reached #1 on the Billboard adult contemporary chart. I feel like I've taught myself how to make them read the way I would find them informative, mostly by trial and error, so for as experienced an editor as you to say what you did really made me smile. I've encountered your user name on here before but I don't believe we've corresponded; then I remembered the article where I just saw one of your edits [2], which thankfully seems to have gone back into remission. Anyway, thanks again! Zephyrnthesky (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot will tag any article with categories listed at WP:CHIBOTCATS. In order to override this activity you must use {{nobots}} by adding it to the talk page of the specific article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have gone the other route and removed [Category:Chicago blues ensembles] from the Climax Blues Band article; which seems more sensible, and thus avoids the bot tagging. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. I hope you remember me from fixing up Shirley's discography early in the summer, as I am formerly User talk:76.198.234.254. There's some editor whose ruined my albums "wiki-box" and I was hoping you can revert this person's (80.100.26.222) edit for me. Please check this out. The problem is that their should not be another column by Label, which he added. I know you'll understand after seeing this. Thanks, --Discographer (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it Derek. Thanks anyhow. If it concerns Shirley, I'll be keeping in touch. Best, --Discographer (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you sorted this out for yourself. Sorry for the delay in replying - I have been away watching cricket at Trent Bridge. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk)

I noticed that you have been a major contributor to Wizzard. Could you take a look at that article, or at my comment here on its talk page? If I'm going crazy, let me know. It seems as if this photo has been there since early 2007. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not done any investigating, but there is no question in my mind that the image you mention has been posted in the article much more recently than 2007. From memory there was a photo of the whole band in the info box until fairly recently (which was genuine) - but it may have been deleted because of non-fair use. The picture now showing clearly does not belong, and is probably vandal created. Delete and be damned, I say.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Long time Wiki user, newcomer to editing. I have added Shirley's 14 BPI certifications to her discography. (Whether what I did can be made to look better is another question.) But I am concerned about one of the entries on the BPI searchable database.
For Never Never Never it says:

SHIRLEY BASSEY - NEVER NEVER NEVER
Silver Certification (Album) Monday, November 01, 1976
UA ()
Released Monday, April 26, 1976

I need to know if this is the 1973 album, because I'm confused. What was released in 1976? I don't see any other Shirley albums at that time named "Never Never Never" (like a compilation) or evidence that the album was re-issued. So why does it say 1976, do you think it is the 1973 album that went silver?

I would appreciate it, I would like to add to the wiki entry for the album that it went silver, and I already put in the discography, perhaps prematurely, because at this point I don't like this 1976 business.

Thanks--Nyctc7 (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will tell you what I know. Firstly, Bassey issued an album entitled Never Never Never in 1973 (United Artists - UAG 29471), which entered the UK Albums Chart on 2 June 1973, and climbed to number 10, spending 10 weeks in that listing. This is sourced from here.^[1] Further confirmation of this release is available at Allmusic - here [3]. The chart position would tend to agree with silver disc status, which quite possibly was not achieved/awarded until November 1976. Otherwise there is no evidence of a 1976 release at Allmusic, and it seems highly improbable that two albums with the same title would be released within three years of each other - unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary. I suspect the release date shown for the LP should read April 1973, and the database you referenced is incorrect (at least in that one respect). Maybe, just maybe, you could ask the compiler(s) of it the same question.

In the meantime, I think you have more than sufficient evidence to assume it was the 1973 release. Does this help ?

Finally, well done for sourcing information - the Bassey article has frustrated me for several years. Almost every editor seems to want to add their own version / opinion / fancruft / sycophantic bollocks, without any hard evidence to back things up. Fourteen or so references, some of which are dubious, for such a fairly lengthy article is just ludicrous.

1. ^ Roberts, David (2006). British Hit Singles & Albums (19th ed.). London: Guinness World Records Limited. p. 44-45. ISBN 1-904994-10-5.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I agree, someone who has been described as Britain's most successful female singer deserves a great article. The maintainers of the Bassey Blog seem to have extensive knowledge about Shirley, and they have a truly impressive collection of videos, newspaper clippings, and other materials, that they display on YouTube or the Blog itself, but in a random manner. On the Message Board (there is a link on the Blog), there are also people who have followed her career for many years, but the activity on the board is not that great. I mentioned there about the wiki article needing help, and the response was pretty much chirping crickets. Although there are more than a few interviews of Shirley on YouTube or in print, it has been said that in general she doesn't like to give them, and has stated that she will never write an autobiography (or cooperative with a biographer.) Apparently she also has no time for fan clubs as well, and the author of the Songs Of Shirley Bassey Website stated that he received zero support from her staff http://home.arcor.de/bassey/, click on "No More Updates To This Site." Sadly, the "New and Improved" version mentioned there no longer exists, it was a fantastic site. Writing a good article about Shirley it seems to me does present a challenge, and I must say that on the Message Board, from time to time, I do see a she-can-do-no-wrong type of attitude, which fits in with what you wrote above.

Now about the putative 1,000,000 in U.S. sales for the single "Goldfinger" as stated in opening sentence of the discography. "Guinness Book Of Records" is quoted as a source (but no citation), is this sufficient? I see no listing for Goldfinger (whether as a soundtrack album or as a single) in the RIAA database, nor for Shirley Bassey, and I also looked under John Barry. If Goldfinger really sold that many copies in the US, you would think we would see a certification. At the least, does the Guinness need one of those "citation needed" superscripts?

In Goldfinger_(song) it says "The single release of the song gave Bassey her only U.S. top ten hit." Shirley had other U.S. top tens, but not on the "main" chart (is that called the "pop" chart or the "Billboard Hot 100"? I get confused), instead Easy Listening, etc., so is it understood, when one writes "only top ten hit," that that refers to the main chart, and the artist may still have top tens in other categories?
Thanks--Nyctc7 (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few comments. Firstly, do not think about linking to YouTube - there is chapter and verse somewhere deep in the Wiki guidelines, but basically it is a 'no no' in most circumstances - violation of copyright being the main stumbling block. I may have a different approach to "Goldfinger". This reference ^[1] cites it was released in the U.S. in November 1964 and had sold a million there by May 1965. The article also states that the film soundtrack album also sold over one million copies. I do not know why the RIAA database lists neither item - pro-American bias perhaps ??!?

In the U.S. the main Billboard Hot 100 is often referred to as the 'pop chart' - although I believe officially it has never had that title. Other charts do exist - see Billboard charts to give you a flavour. Even that article barely touches the tip of the iceberg. Frankly, if you and I farted "Baa Baa Black Sheep" out of tune on to a record, it would probably appear in one of those multitudinous listings. The Yanks simply love statistics. Consequently most charts are largely ignored by their general public, and that is why it would be commonly quoted that the song was "her only Top Ten hit." Frankly, if it confused you, such blasé wording may do so to others. Thus, it might be well worth adding "in the Billboard Hot 100" for total clarity.

I hope this helps - regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It helps a great deal. I will use your reference instead of the uncited Guinness. (I assume that is ok.) I will think about your suggestion about the top ten hit, or maybe I will just leave it be. As to bias in the RIAA, can't really comment on that, though as I'm sure you're aware, certification is not automatic--it has to be requested by the record company. Since only a very modest fee is involved, it seems likely that EMI UA would have done so, but you never know. When you see Top Selling Artists there are non-U.S. artists there. (It is disconcerting to see the certified sales numbers compared to the numbers that get thrown around by fans, in the press, or on wiki, even taking into account this list doesn't include sales outside the US.) But maybe these top-selling international artists are being certified because their records are on American labels? I never really considered bias, though perhaps it is a question worth investigating further. One last comment, there are some Billboard Charts other than the Hot 100 that I've always thought of as significant, even if the particular genre was not to my taste. Country, R&B/Hip-Hop (I prefer R&B without the Hip-Hop), and Rap come to mind. Adult Contemporary and Dance might have songs I like. But admitedly that is only 5 charts! To further complicate matters, I see that there is a "Pop Songs" chart, separate from the Hot 100.
Thanks again for your help!--Nyctc7 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A further complication. The first sentence in the discography is "Dame Shirley Veronica Bassey has sold approximately 135 million records worldwide as of January 2008, her single "Goldfinger" selling over one million copies in the U.S. alone (Guinness Book of Records)." So Guinness is being used not just for Goldfinger sales, but as a source for the 135,000,000 figure. (A figure that has been recently quoted in the press--without indicating a source I might add--in conjunction with her upcoming album. So I need to try and track this down, for if it pans out, I will use it other places that refer to her overall record sales. I might have to go to a bookstore or library to do this instead of online.--Nyctc7 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good luck with all that. As you know, generally claims regarding record sales are highly speculative, particularly when these cover a long period and different territories. You may find a reliable third party source - the Guinness Book of Records would logically be one such reference (although I do not have a copy) - but less specifically I suspect you may find many blind alleys. Rather like pop star's birth dates, a subject I have studied for a number of years, subterfuge is commonplace. One thing is for sure, any half decent reference is better than none at all - which has always been my problem with the bulk of Bassey's article. In my experience, Wikipedia articles that are blessed with a decent amount of citations are far less prone to fancruft and opinionated rubbish. However, as you have discovered already, Bassey does not help the situation by shunning in-depth interviews etc. When half truths are rife, speculation becomes an industry in itself. Hang on, I am starting to sound like Plato !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Derek Thanks for tidying Glenn Cornick - no problems, just one question:-
Your changes leave one sentence including the phrase "on UK and U.S. tours". Is there a reason I am unaware of(MoS?) for using different punctuation in two almost identical abbreviations? - to my eye it just looks awkward.
--Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have tended to follow the U.S. abbreviation (as in American English) and UK for the United Kingdom. However, this is the section from Wikipedia:Manual of Style that proves me wrong - I think ?!! - "In American English, U.S. (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for United States; US (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English and is becoming increasingly common in American English. In longer abbreviations incorporating the country's initials (USN, USAF), periods are not used. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US can be too informal, and many editors avoid it especially at first mention of the country (France and the United States, not France and the U.S.). In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.). The spaced U. S. is never used, nor is the archaic U.S. of A., except in quoted materials. U.S.A. and USA are not used unless quoted or as part of a proper name (Team USA). "

Typical Wiki guidelines that state 'it is preferable to avoid' (in other words, do what you like). Anyhow, enough of my ranting - I have removed the full stops from Cornick's article, and will try to refrain in the future (it has simply become my habit). Thanks and best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot - well done on the creation of the Ronnie Scott (songwriter) article. I guess after all the brilliant research you did to answer my questions, you almost had three quarters of the article. Anyhow, a top rate effort from you - bravo !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clean-up of articles. But please avoid overlinking, as you did in this edit. I recommend taking a look at User:Tony1/Build your linking skills. I'll edit the article Keely Smith and explain on the talk page. — Sebastian 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

My pleasure, hahah.. a bit of light relief. Not sure about the bantams though, unless they have a forthcoming career as racing bantams, actors or team mascots? Or maybe they can gain notability by you becoming president of a shakily-administered third world country? Stranger things have no doubt happened :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops - sorry, must have forgotten to save it! Will do it again.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - upon looking at the Allmusic site again, I found the track listed. It is not an easy read - might be my age though.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions on the discography! (The edit was slighty wrong but I fixed it) - I was wondering where the chart listing of "To All the Men..." came from - I could not find it anywhere either. It was added before I started working on the discography. Dutchdean (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is a German website, possibly www.zobbel.de (or some variant), which is sometimes used by editors. The problem is that it quotes chart placings that do not exist (#129 for a single, for example). It seems to be a 'made-up chart', existing outside of the official UK Singles Chart. I have never had the time to try to get to the bottom of it all - but it is a likely suspect. I firmly believe we should stick to the official charts, and the accepted source(s) for them. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Oké that is very possible. I only use the Guiness Books for the UK, and the Dutch Hit Dossier for Dutch entries, both incude the official chart lists. Dutchdean (talk)

Happened upon this by accident while pursuing something completely different. Not sure if you ever saw it before, but thought you might find it amusing. Chubbles (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tee hee. I did not see it originally, which is probably a good job. Mind you, you must have always known that I have 'sneaky vandalism' tendencies !?! Oh well, to one man you're a saint, to another you're a sinner. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant! I have somewhere "Out in Front"- dodgy cover these days, perhaps, but great music. Hope the article survives, as some might think they are non-notable, but I think the presence of Pete Wingfield should cover that one. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your positive response. I kept finding vague references to them via the Pete Wingfield and Mike Vernon articles etc., and went for it. Let the deletionists decide ! Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice article! Do you want to nominate it for WP:DYK, or shall I? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because I do not have a clue how to, could I ask you to oblige ? Thanks and best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Amazing what you find when you look into things. The single and album were not "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is", regardless of what Allmusic says - they were "Put The Music Where Your Mouth Is", as here and here, and confirmed in my Whitburn book. I'll give the DYK thing some more thought. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done - I had my doubts when I was penning the article over that album title. I trusted Allmusic, but of course nothing is totally infallible as a source. Thanks for your additions to the article too - maybe I should have looked a little further myself when doing my research. Still, two heads really are better than one ! I'll have a small bet with you. I reckon it will be your input that gets on the DYK page, and I will end up with nothing.... NOTHING, do you hear me. Zilch. LOL and regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll get you a credit! Needs a good DYK hook though.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WELCOME!! Hello, Derek R Bullamore! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself in the new user log and the list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. Wikipedia is held up by Five Pillars...I recommend reading about them if you haven't already. Finally, it would be really helpful if you would sign your name on talk pages, so people can get back to you quickly. It's easy to do this by clicking the button (next to the one with the "W" crossed out) one from the end on the left. If that's confusing, or if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a ♪ at my talk page (by clicking the plus sign (+) next to the tab at the top that says "edit this page")...and again, welcome!

Dongding12 (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I hate to tell you, but I have been on Wikipedia since December 2005 - so you are somewhat late with your missive !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I assumed from your recent edits that you must be a new user! Silly me!

Dongding12 (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have no objection to including The Olympic Runners among the List of funk musicians. It certainly seems like they meet the criteria set at the top of that page. My reason for removing them yesterday is that they had no article, providing no indication whether the band was notable.

Please don't take the removal of The Olympic Runners personally. If you look at the list's edit history, you'll see that I routinely remove "redlink" articles from the list.

Nice article about The Olympic Runners, by the way. Have you considered nominating it for consideration at Did you know? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply, more than reasonable explanation, and your kind comments. A Wiki colleague of mine, User:Ghmyrtle, is considering putting the article forward for DYK - he has more experience in these matters than I. Thanks again,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10