User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

re:San Francisco

It's really easy... if the title is obviously wrong, click the "move" tab up at the top of the page. Just type in the corrected title (looks like its already formatted correctly re: capitalization, so just insert the missing word) and the reason for the move (something like "corrected the title") and the function automatically moves the article and the talk page. It also automatically creates a redirect from the old (incorrect) title. Once it is moved, click the "What links here" link (on the left-hand side) and you can see everything that links to the article. Any page that is shown underneath the old title (as a redirect) would have to be changed. If it is just a couple of articles, you can do them all manually... some people utilize bots if there are a LOT of articles to change, but I've never done that. Before you do it: Doublecheck that particular song. I just looked in a Billboard chart reference book and the word "some" is not there. You may want to do a Google search first and/or look it up on allmusic.com or some other pop-music-related website to be absolutely sure. Moving a page back to its original title requires a Wikipedia admin. For more info see Help:Moving a page. - eo 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your detailed response. Having researched further, the song appears in both title versions. For example, confusingly allmusic.com quotes the title with "some" on McKenzies' biography page, but without the word in his own song page ! I suspect (but do not know for sure) it was released under the different titles in different territories - primarily the U.S. and the UK. The song lyric definitely has the word "some" included. I'm not sure what to do now - having thought I knew the song, it is amazing what you can find out by research, or pure accident. I suppose it is something else to include in the wikipedia page on the track - assuming I can find some definite evidence. Frankly, the bloody title is too long to keep repeating in search engines ! I think I might put the seeming conundrum in the song's wiki talk page, and see what other contributors come up with. Thanks again.

Derek R Bullamore 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try a Google image search? You might be able to find a photo of the actual picture sleeve of the single or an image of the record. Try musicstack.com, they're a record retailer that has a lot of older and out of print titles and many times there is a photo. - eo 21:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Random

I just wanted to know is Beyonce Knowles is really 25? Georgia Peachez 05:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can be certain, she was born Beyoncé Giselle Knowles, 4 September 1981, in Houston, Texas. So yes, she is presently aged 25. However, you may care to note the attached link on her wikipedia article, which states a claim to her being born in 1974. You decide ?! Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 18:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

B Bradley

Hi Derek. Just wondering if you can help me out with more info/references for this?

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabb (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You put the article up - Bob Bradley (composer/producer) - and now you are asking me (who merely added the {Wiki} and {References} tags) for assistance ?! I suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style for guidance. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and that text must be verified from a reliable source, with a NPOV. Maybe you should take a look at one of the best articles on Wikipedia - like The KLF - for further inspiration. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks Derek, I'll look into it.

Regards

Katie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.110.145 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dave Mount

I had a look, and did a bit of research on line, and you're obviously right. I've edited the page accordingly, and left a message at its Talk page. (I am indeed of the right vintage, but I was never exactly a fan — I've got a CD of their Greatest Hits, though.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work. ("Not a fan, but I've got a CD") - mmm - that clears my name appertaining to The Wombles though. LOL and regards,

Derek R Bullamore 11:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Angie Stone

Are you sure about Angie Stone's birth date? I've searched for information about it on the Internet but I haven't found a thing. Funk Junkie 20:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not easy to be sure about pop star's birth dates at the best of times. I do remember searching long and hard for Angie Stone's.... but I can not recall where I found reference to it. With a birthday file of over 3,800 in my possession (accumulated over nearly seven years, and thousands and thousands of hours of hard research) it is impossible to remember every source(s). I will dig around - possibly it came from one of my own library of a myraid of publications - although that will take time to go through. I have a feeling I unearthed the data about a year ago, when I was researching dates for my then forthcoming New Year radio programmes - that is probably why it came around again at this time.

I know I am being a bit vague over this - memory and middle age don't mix !

Derek R Bullamore 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

re:Leo Sayer

Hey there.... yes I remember Leo Sayer. I was a bit young, but I did have "You Make Me Feel Like Dancing" in my collection of 45s when I was a kid  :-) Anyhoo, the best you can do to stay on top of vandals is to place the proper vandal tags on their user talk pages. They can be found here and here. Usually these are enough to deter the person from coming back, but unfortunately this is not always the case. Once final warning has been given just request a admin's intervention here. Definitely keep these pages handy, they're good for any vandal, not just the Leo-Sayer-haters! - eo 22:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Just a word of advice: Get in the habit of using test-warnings every time you remove vandalism from anywhere. Too many vandals have their edits removed and are allowed to just slide by. Nothing will ever get done if no one takes a moment to place the vandalism templates on their pages. The more people document users' vandalism, the quicker we can get them blocked. Have fun!!  :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericorbit (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Many thanks - again. I thought that only administrators or editors (or whatever they are called) were allowed to post such messages - I do not want to get into trouble by being "too big for my boots" (sorry, a Northern England expression - but you can probably guess the meaning).

Derek R Bullamore 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hull KR

I knew about 'Flash', I didn't know about Millward. I'm not a Hull KR fan but I did go to the National League Cup final last year. IMO they were robbed.

I've taken most of it from Hull KR's site. I haven't added them as a source yet but I will do in due course. It is quite difficult to get sources on the net, some clubs have plenty of fan histories and others don't. It's largely pot luck.

Right now I'm trying to incorporate data from other wiki pages to make it more complete and less copyvio. For example the quote about the sign saying "Will the last person to leave Hull turn off the lights?" came from the Hull FC article. This is why it is sometimes not possible to reference articles fully.GordyB 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

re:Crossroad Blues / Cross Road Blues

If they're obviously about the same subject, stick merge tags on the top of both pages and put a comment in the Talk Page. The tags are here. After some time passes, see what the general consensus is and combine the info, redirecting one page to the other. - eo 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Baccara

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know that Mayte Mateos' birthdate is February 7, 1951 (not March). I've made the proper correction to the article again. If you have any doubt about Baccara I recommend you take a look to the Spanish Wikipedia article... In fact, the English article is a mere (polished) translation from the Spanish one. The Spanish article is supervised by close friends to both María Mendiola and Mayte Mateos. Thanks for your interest in Baccara. Any contribution is welcome, but please first discuss it in the proper page. Thanks in advance. oaobregon

Your message

I agree completely; people can't dictate what we do and don't include in articles on them. If the birth dates are verifiable, then they're in the public domain anyway. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:People from Birmingham

Hi Derek, I notice that you added the category Category:People from Birmingham to a couple of articles; you might like to know that this is a disambiguation category which articles shouldn't be placed into, instead you should use Category:People from Birmingham, England (or Category:People from Birmingham, Alabama for the US city.) I've changed the categories on the articles you've already done, but I thought you might like to know for future reference. -- AJR | Talk 01:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - and sorry, I did not know (but I do now).

Derek R Bullamore 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The KLF

Hi Derek me old China,

This may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 9, 2007

It certainly excited me :) --kingboyk 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news, dear boy. It shows that all the hard work you, and others, put into the article was more than worthwhile. See - you did not need me at all !

Derek R Bullamore 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Yorkshire

Hi, being a wikipedian from Yorkshire I was wondering if you would support the project that Retiono Virginian is proposing here:[[1]]. Thanks Willow177 17:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I support the project. However my primary interest is music, which will continue to receive the bulk of my efforts. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

re:Night Fever

Hi there. I moved the page to Night Fever (song) per song naming conventions (i.e. use "song" and not "single"). To correct any double-redirect, click on a link that is redirected - in this case, try Night Fever (single).... see up top right underneath the article's title it states "redirected from Night Fever (single)" and the old title is clickable. Click the old title. This brings up the redirect page and you can edit it just like you would any article... simply replace the incorrect page title with "Night Fever (song)". - eo 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT

I noticed that you added some DEFAULTSORTs to articles where the sort key is identical to the article title, such as Dubstar. I can't tell why this is needed; is there a reason? –Unint 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not make much sense, does it. Over exuberance on my part, when editing other matters in an article possibly ? But, does it actually do any harm as such ? I will try to be more circumspect in future. Sorry,

Derek R Bullamore 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Style on Song Titles

Thanks for pointing out that Wikipedia's style is to use quotes on song titles rather than italics. DL77 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Give Peace a Chance

> Sorry, but the song on Mad Dogs and Englishmen is not a cover version of the John Lennon composition. I own a copy of the original vinyl LP, so I should know. The song in question was written by Leon Russell and Bonnie Bramlett (as previously stated). Regards, Derek R Bullamore 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. I own the album, I should have known better. Has been fixed. Wasted Time R 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Song Titles

Hi, many thanks for pointing that out to me-I hadn't realised! I'll have to go back through many other articles i've done and change accordingly. All the best. Dashwortley 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your message

I'm not sure if I've already replied — but better twice than never. Although perhaps not, because I can't be of any help, I'm afraid. All I could do is Google, which I expect you've done exhaustively. Sorry. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Format of chart singles lists

Do you have any views (or do you know of any guidance) on how best to present lists of singles - and/or, specifically chart singles ? I've made a couple of attempts at listings, eg at Dion DiMucci and Tavares, but it would be useful to try and get some consistency. My main interest at the moment is in the US R&B charts - I have Joel Whitburn's R&B chart book which goes up to 1995 (though I'm not interested much beyond, say, 1980 !) which gives me a lot of useful info, but I've only got fairly sketchy info on the UK and Billboard charts (I'm debating with myself whether to fork out for the full US Billboard chart listings). There's no consistency on whether all singles should be listed, or only chart singles (and, if so, which charts ? Billboard and UK, also US R&B where relevant in my view - but what about Australian charts etc etc ...), and also no consistency on whether to list labels, serial numbers, B-sides and so on - not to mention styles of borders and boxes. Clearly it wouldn't be possible to impose any consistency, but if you have any views maybe at least we could agree between ourselves ! By the way, thanks for your changes on The Yachts - and thanks for all the other positive changes you've made to my articles. I may try to take a break from this over the summer and get a life, so don't give me more work to do ! Ghmyrtle 11:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you raise various salient issues. Frankly there does not appear to be any consistency / consistent guidance over chart listings. For a visual viewpoint, the boxed approach is better (although I have never attempted such a styling). Your efforts with Dion DiMucci appear fine to me. Certainly there is a tendency for editors to add B-sides, catalogue numbers, umpteen chart positions from around the globe, issue / re-issue dates etc. If one is not careful, it ends up looking a complete mess (and is barely readable). For my money the extraneous details are better left to specialist publications (as you note). The British Hit Singles & Albums - 19th Edition - ISBN 1-904994-10-5 is worth buying. The Everyhit.com website [2] is a cheaper option, but it only covers the UK Top 40, whereas Charts All Over The World website [3] is comprehensive, but I am not sure about its accuracy. Reverting to me for the UK chart may be the easiest/cheapest option, if you are stuck. I personally tend to leave Billboard Hot 100 and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs listings to others. As you may be aware the Yanks have a frigging record chart for everything - see Billboard Charts. I think if I farted in key I would appear in one of them ! Then again, there is CashBox, which some editors quote from time to time.

In my view a main article needs to be reasonably succinct with chart placings - perhaps the individual song articles (as exist) are the best place for more 'global information'. I hope this helps - if we stick to following those articles that have Featured articles status, then perhaps we will not go far wrong. Sadly there are so very few of them to refer to. Bloody vandals and IP addresses (don't get me started) ! Whatever, keep beavering away, and best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore 13:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Death songs

Hey, man, I just finished reading about Ricky Valance, and the most fascinating piece of info was about the BBC's ban on American death songs of the 1950s et al. There should really be an article about that. Any chance you can start one for us?

Not a chance is the easy answer ! The piece about the BBC banning the record was lifted directly from The Guinness Book of 500 Number One Hits - ISBN 0-85112-250-7. My personal knowledge about the BBC policy at that time is negligible (I was aged six). However, the following may give you more information if you wish to pursue it further. Teen Angel (song); [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]; [10].

Sorry I can not help further. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 12:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

John Wetton/Wishbone Ash

On May 25th, 2007, you undid my redirection from UK (the band which John Wetton had co-founded) to the United Kingdom. Why?--Menrathu 18:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Do you know, I have absolutely no idea ! Humble apologies - too many continuous multitudinious edits for one too old perhaps ?! Very sorry, it is clearly my error. I will wear my dunce's cap - again.

Derek R Bullamore 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronnie Hilton

Hi, I've added references, hope its okay. I've also got a link out to the lyrics of "Windmill in Old Amsterdam" (My all time favorite song during childhood and adulthood!), which I will try to add later. Currently experiencing server problems.

Well done - "I saw a mouse; where ?; there on the stair" etc.

Derek R Bullamore 21:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Bob Wooler

I am somewhat surprised that you consider this article to be wikied. To my eyes it still looks a long way short of complying with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Any comments ?

Derek R Bullamore

• The wikify tag is just to point out the need for basic formatting and wikilinking, generally it's applied to almost totally unformatted articles and removed when the basics have been addressed. Of course most articles still have a way to go to fully comply with the MOS, just leaving the tag on perpetually is not useful when what is needed are relatively complicated tweaks. Feel free to make those improvements but I don't think the wikify tag will speed up the process much. --W.marsh 19:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re. Colin Hodgkinson

Greetings Derek R Bullamore,

Nice re-write on the Colin Hodgkinson article - it had been on my to-do list for too long! Regs., --Technopat 18:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Technopat,

Hope I did not 'steal your thunder' on the Colin Hodgkinson re-write. It is not brilliant now, but as you point out, it's considerably better than it looked before. As you are probably aware, getting info / references for these 'lesser lights' of popular music is not easy. Take care,

Derek R Bullamore 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Belle Epoque

Thanks, Derek, for the correction on the placing on the UK charts of "Black is Black" by Belle Epoque. I appreciate your citing the proper source, rather than my relying on the artist's word!

I have my copy of British Hit Singles on order, so next time I'll be better informed and properly cited.

One question for you--is it proper wiki etiquette if I merge the Belle Epoque and La Belle Epoque articles myself? I started the former, and I hate to destroy anyone else's work, but it makes sense to merge them at some point. Now I just have to figure out how to move pictures in wiki.

Again, thanks for your contributions.

--Bayonett 11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome on my input ! I believe the etiquette is to leave the merge tags in place for a few days, to give editors their chance to comment on the proposed merger. This would include the original author of La Belle Epoque, and any subsequnet sub-editors. Frankly, I can not see any viable objection arising. You could try contacting a Wiki administrator(s), and asking their view(s), if you wish to quicken the process. I have only one comment to make, which I nearly included in my original sentences on each article's talk page. According to British Hit Singles (not the definitive source, but certainly one of them) their name is "La Belle Epoque", which might be significant on merging. On the question of moving images, there you have me - I am a humble sub-editor here, and imaging is way beyond me !

On the wider scale, keep beavering away on those 'minor' 1970s pop stars - I am right behind you, or ahead of you (well, I am somewhere, that's for sure). Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 12:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

--Bayonett 14:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Derek! It's funny--in the British publications, you're quite right, the group is listed as La Belle Epoque. In the American publications (Joel Whitburn's Billboard/Record Research publications) and on the albums I have, they are listed as Belle Epoque. So go figure--I may try to merge mine back within the "La" article, then do redirects for all. As soon as I figure out how to do all that, of course.

I am curious if you have any information on the band Brothers, who had a hit on the U.K. charts with "Sing Me" back in 1977. I have been thinking of doing a short blurb about them, but I have little to no information on them. I can track down one additional single, "Beautiful," and vaguely remember something about them being from Mauritius, but I don't really know.

Something to think about!

Thanks again and take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayonett (talk • contribs) 14:43, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Something to think about indeed. Right, here goes. The Brothers were one-hit wonders having their only hit in the UK Singles Chart in early 1977, with - as you point out - "Sing Me". It reached number 8, and was in the chart for nine weeks. The single was released on Bus Stop Records under the catalogue number, BUS 1054. According to British Hit Singles they were a UK vocal group. According to the All Music Guide website, this track is available on four compilation albums, including Hallmark Records - Hits of the 70's - Vol. 3, released on 3 June 2002. Actually the disc has some nice obscure tracks, such as "Pepper Box" by The Peppers, "Nice and Slow" by Jesse Green, "Big Six" by Judge Dread, "Who Do You Love?" by Juicy Lucy, "New Orleans" by Harley Quinne and "My Heart's Symphony" by Gary Lewis and the Playboys.

Now things start getting more difficult. "Sing Me" is a common enough song title - including one written by Neil Sedaka and Howard Greenfield and sung by Sedaka. Not the same song though - ours is a cod reggae little gem. This website [11] bring up not only the single listing, but also an album - entitled Sing Me under catalogue number BUSLP 8002. Or, you can buy the original 7 inch vinyl single of "Sing Me" b/w "Love Don't Change" for £3.00 - around $6.00 here [12]. Or on E-bay here - [13]. Still no closer. There's a disparaging mention here [14], but even my copious library of pop publications throws no more light on the matter. I think we need a songwriter or production credit to investigate further.

Sorry, I think I have failed - best wishes from dear old Blighty.

Derek R Bullamore 17:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The Ladybirds

Speaking as a deletionist, if you can add some verifiable sources, this should be fine. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Morriss

Your vandalism to Mark Morriss' article was not appreciated. Further such actions will result in your being blocked. Consider this your first warning. - Dudesleeper · Talk 10:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Brothers (band)

Hi, Derek--based on our previous conversation about Belle Epoque/La Belle Epoque, I have created a page for Brothers, the recording group behind "Sing Me." Please feel free to update and edit as necessary!

Of course I've run into the same problem as Belle Epoque/La Belle Epoque--some recordings reference the definite article, some do not. But with the links, I've tried to cover all bases, although I probably need to do a disambiguation page.

Anyway, it's a start.

By the way, I'd never heard the term "cod reggae" before! Now I'm hooked on identifying other cod reggae records--such as "If I Had Words" but Scott Fitzgerald and Yvonne Keeley, "Dreadlock Holiday" by 10cc, and "Haitian Divorce" by Steely Dan.

Thanks for your help!

Bayonett 17:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done - I have sub-edited Brothers (band) a little bit (I think I have probably done more good than harm). On the wider subject of cod reggae, your three suggestions are definitely worth pursuing. Some genuine reggae purists would probably suggest that most - if not all - work by Aswad and UB40 fall into the same category. However, I have no source on that statement !

Keep up the good work. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore 19:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good changes, Derek--and thank you! I have, however, corrected myself, going back to the two Brothers singles I have to discover that they are listed as The Brothers on the recordings, rather than simply Brothers. Who knows where the truth lies? But I have changed the listing to The Brothers (band) and added other details. Maybe we'll see more added in time.

Bayonett 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

re: Matt Johnson

Yes, his additions were indeed POV, I put a new warning on his page. Looks like he has a history of vandalising other pages as well, such as Genesis P-Orridge. I'll keep an eye out. You may find this page handy when you come across any type of vandalism. - eo 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Short note

If you're going to wikilink "hit", it should probably link to hit single, not chart-topper, since many hits do not reach #1. Chubbles 17:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note, and apologies for the delay in replying. I have been on holiday (to Malta - very nice). Anyhow, I was not aware that an article existed under the hit single name - which I agree is a more apt link in many cases. Three thoughts though:-

1. Are you suggesting 'hit' should not be linked? Whilst it is a perfectly normal expression to you or I, a more casual reader may possibly think it means the artist actually walloped someone (maybe) ?!

2. hit single and hit record are now up for possible merger - so perhaps I should await the outcome of that discussion (not that there seems to have been any to date).

3. I continually come across 'linkers' and 'unlinkers' of words in my travels around the music based articles. I am confused what to do at times.

Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore 13:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I never checked back to respond to this. I don't mind people linking hit (there's an anon IP going through the pop articles who does a lot of that kind of linking as well), but it's sometimes a sort of low-priority link - say, in an article like The Who or Smashing Pumpkins, it seems rather more to clutter the landscape than to enhance it. There are some who try to reduce the linkages so that the articles link sparingly to more intensive items like band names, album titles, geographic locations, and such...Doesn't really matter to me as long as the information's there. Free to do as you please. Chubbles 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Ragovoy

Hi ... could I just ask for a bit more detail regarding the recent and rather massive deletions from this article? I didn't really see that much that was POV and not factual, and I must have missed the copyright violation. (I'm not the contributor of those changes. I know Jerry pretty well so I tend to refrain from editing that article, but I hate to see a lot of that good information go down the tubes.) Scott Johnson 12:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. The text I deleted was lifted directly from the All Music Guide article ie. [15]. Hence the copyright violation and my removal of same. However, I did use it partly as a base for my recent edits. Hope this is acceptable - incidentally, is Jerry OK, and is he still writing great songs (and can you find out his full birth details) ?!

Derek R Bullamore 14:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for confirming "Ain't Nobody Home" on B.B. King in London. Regs.--Technopat 11:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Whistling Jack Smith

Hi, you made this change with edit summary: "Good citable evidence suggests Whistling Jack Smith should not re-direct to John O'Neill - see the latter's talk page". I have reverted your change; if the redirect is incorrect, please change it so that it points to the right page. Otherwise, you can list it for deletion, but please don't just blank the page. This is just frustrating for any user who gets to this page. Thanks, Schutz 15:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. However, there is presently no 'Whistling Jack Smith' / 'right page' to re-direct to - something I am slowly working on. Plus, I do not know how to list something for deletion. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Walker Brothers

Re your last edit, I've just noticed that WP:MOS actually states :- "When the United States is mentioned by acronym in the same article as other abbreviated country names, for consistency do not use periods (the US, the UK and the PRC); and especially do not add periods to the other acronyms, as in the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.)." Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bollocks. So where did I discover that US was supposed to be represented as U.S.? Or even that USA was not "allowed". There are times when the help pages are anything but a help to me - perhaps it is my age - sorry, no offence meant (I have donned my dunce's cap again). Take care,

Derek R Bullamore 23:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnnie Ray

Hi. Thanks for the notice on my screw-up formatting the song titles. I'll keep it in mind. Appreciate the advice. regards. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My birthday

I'm Charlie Gillingham. My birthday is actually January 26th 1960. It's often misreported as January 12th—one of those bits of information that was misreported years ago and has been constantly misreported since. Last year, I emailed all the websites that I could find and to try to get them to change it, but more websites always crop up with wrong date, and so the consensus on the internet tends to remain that I was born on the 12th. I have no idea where this misinformation started. (Actually, that's how I began editing Wikipedia: correcting my birthday last year. That's when I realized how easy it was and started editing in my spare time.) Unfortunately, I can't edit my own bio, of course, so I'd appreciate if you'd change it back. If you'd like a source there's this:

• http://www.musicsquare.net/talk/c2007-1.html

Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your message. I trust you appreciate my mistake was genuine, and I am more than happy to effect the necessary correction. It's good to meet you, albeit in hyperspace as it were. Hope you are well, and your records are selling by the truckload ! Incidentally, your wikipedia article is rather short - is there any NPOV info that should be inserted ? Take care,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a quick google search on me turns up the oscar nomination. Allmusic.com has a more balanced list of records I've played on. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Hillman

Happy to have a go, and I'll copy the email you received to Hillman's talk page. I'll also add Patrick Hand's explanation re the copyright status of the image to the image page itself - Image:Hillman.jpg - but I think it is very likely to be deleted unless Patrick himself, as the uploader of the image, provides a watertight explanation of its copyright status. As you know, there are many people around who - for what they see as necessary legal reasons, rightly or wrongly - are eager to ensure that images with uncertain copyright status are removed pronto. Can you email him to advise him? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged - I take all your points re copyright. It is an important issue generally, but there does seem to be plenty of those around who delete any posted image with an unnatural fervour. I will e-mail Patrick too. Many thanks for your expertise (you know what they say about Yorkshiremen - strong in arm and thick of head)Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image now deleted as predicted I'm afraid - Patrick or Mr Hillman will have to post it themselves with an even clearer copyright rationale. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivy League/Flowerpot Men

Hi Derek, I note that you've made some contributions to the Flowerpot Men article ... I've left a note there that the Ivy League needs an entry of its own, rather than redirecting straight to the Flowerpot Men. There's a strong link between the two bands, but the Ivy League are worth more than a passing mention at the other article. Are you in a position to start something? I think I have some material myself that will help. I'll see if I can dig it out. I appreciate your valuable contributions to Wiki's 60s/70s pop knowledge base! Grimhim (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment - but now I have more work to do ! I will start to work on this soon, because I agree the The Ivy League deserve a page of their own. I hope the references are easier to find than some I have been involved with. All help is appreciated once the framework is in place.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Now done - not a masterpiece, but better than nothing. Over to you. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a champion, Derek. Many thanks. I've changed the redirect on the Ivy League (band) entry (i.e. the earlier entry without the definite article) as well. Grimhim (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oleta Adams

Hey Derek, you messaged me about a sentence added to the Oleta Adams article on her experiences with the disco movement. You stated that it needed sources and yet, the sources are already on the page.

Here is a biography of Oleta Adams from her own personal homepage - http://oletaadams.com/about-archive.html

I understand that some ambiguity might arise from the idea that executives had been "deafened by the disco movement" but I wanted to point out that the notion of her being turned down due to the disco movement seems pretty well-based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnbguru (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is the sources do not quote anyone stating that 'record executives were consumed by disco'. It is YOUR OWN POV - and that is the crux of the matter. The article must be neutral in opinion - unless there is reliable, citable, independent, quotation(s) proffering such a view (any view for that matter). Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more in-depth instruction. Also, please sign all your comments with four tildes (ie. 4 x ~). Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Derek. I didn't know there was a huge difference between being consumed by something and being deafened by it. I'll have to start digging around for that old thesaurus of mine.

Rnbguru (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stuart Adamson and bolding full names

Their full name (and even pseudonyms, stage names, etc.) are supposed to be made bold. If you want to look into it, check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sinéad O'Carroll

I have nominated Sinéad O'Carroll, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinéad O'Carroll. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Johnson and the Bandwagon

Hi Derek...New Wiki member here. I just wondered why you have deleted my personal recollections added recently to the Bandwagon entry. I was the bass player with his backing band 'Stone Idol' in 1970 during the UK tour and drew the information from my personal and detailed diary kept at the time. I could have listed every date on the tour but felt the generalisation of "the northern soul circuit" was adequate.

The entry was accurate and neutral so I am just wondering what was wrong about it?...I searched extensively on the internet but there couldn't have been that level of intimate detail unless it had been written by someone who was there. I was also a personal friend of Johnny and the boys during that period.

Incidently I was later bass player with the Leo Sayer Band and am currently working on a Wiki entry for a long time personal friend Frank Farrell who wrote several songs with Gerry during our time in the band. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Year links

Hello from Japan. I appreciate your efforts in improving the music articles here at Wikipedia. While I think your edits are very useful for the most part, I do not understand why you keep removing the year links from artist discographies. Not that I think those links are really important, but I think they may help the readers associate the artist timelines with happenings outside those particular articles.

There should be no harm leaving them as they are (unless they are mislinked), and devoting your time in removing them seems to be unconstructive. I personally have spent some time adding those links in the past, so I am interested in knowing the reasons why they have to be removed.

You mention Wikipedia:Manual of Style as your reasons for such edits, but I couldn't find any information that suggest editors to edit the articles that way.

If it is indeed Wikipedia policies that year links should not be used that way, my apologies. If that is the case, please kindly point me to the exact statement where it is said so. Thanks in advance. --Sumori (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I am not an expert on Wikipedia protocol, and personally remain slightly confused when editors remove, or add, elements with great vigour. Indeed, I enlisted a fellow wikipedian's thoughts on your more than valid query. He replied :"As far as the piped year links are concerned, personally within discographies I leave years linked for albums, but I remove them for singles. Some editors remove them completely. I do know that there are policies about over-linking years - honestly, I would need to search this out, but I do know there are several bots that remove excessive year wikilinking anyway, and not just in discographies."

For my own part, I have experienced vigorous removal of bare year links right across the musical articles. Frankly, these links might look neat (and I have added plenty over my time here), but more recently accept that they probably serve little purpose. It is not a black and white situation for sure - so please do not take any personal offence at my actions. Best wishes from Blighty,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The chart toppper that kept Neanderthal Man at No.2

Hi Derek, can I pick your brains for a moment please? I'm wondering if you have more detailed chart details than I have that would reveal exactly which song kept Hotlegs' "Nenaderthal Man" from reaching No.1? The best information I have is that the song "entered" the charts (a very woolly term) on July 4, 1970; Mungo Jerry's "In the Summertime" hogged the No.1 spot for seven weeks from June 13, so that was probably the culprit, but on August 1 Elvis' "The Wonder of You" bumped it off and stayed there for six weeks. Depending on how long "Neanderthal Man" was on the charts, it's an outside chance it was Elvis who kept it off the top spot. So, as I say, I'm hoping you might have something definitive I could use in the article and cite the source. There's an American book of No.2 hits, but none, that I know of, of British No. 2's. Thanks, and all the best from Australia! Grimhim (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. "Neanderthal Man" was No. 2 for two weeks between 15 & 28 August 1970. So it was Elvis Presley's The Wonder of You" that did the dirty on Hotlegs. My number one information comes from Now, I have a spreadsheet (that I created) for the No. 2's, that covers 1952 to 2003. A friend of mine downloaded the list from a website - but I am not sure how he found this, and it was several years ago now. Anyhow, hope this helps. Best wishes from dear old Blighty.

Roberts, David (2006). British Hit Singles & Albums (19th ed.). London: Guinness World Records Limited. pp. p. 248-49. ISBN 1-904994-10-5. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, me old mate. I'll add that to the article soon. Grimhim (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

re: Help

Hi there, so sorry for the delayed response! Hope you're doing well. From what I can gather from the Johnny Johnson and the Bandwagon scenario, my opinion is basically the same as yours... information needs to be sourced. Unfortunately for the editor with a personal history with this band, editors can't just throw anything they'd like into an article without some sort of citation. It's just the nature of an encyclopedia, otherwise every article pertaining to a band or a celebrity would contain personal anecdotes from friends and/or hangers-on, etc., etc. It's kind of like not allowing someone to edit their own entry since it would obviously not be a neutral source, right? As far as the piped year links are concerned, personally within discographies I leave years linked for albums, but I remove them for singles. Some editors remove them completely. I do know that there are policies about over-linking years - honestly, I would need to search this out, but I do know there are several bots that remove excessive year wikilinking anyway, and not just in discographies. - eo (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Eo and thank you Derek for taking the time to advance my query elsewhere and if this is the definite decision then I will happily bend to it. But as a newby wiki ‘editor’ it still makes me a little sad, really for the encyclopedia and for any students trying to find more information on the subject. The current entry is really no more than a cold list of information that is already available elsewhere. There can be no citable source for the factual information I added now, because nobody else ever wrote it down and to all intents and purposes I am probably the only person left who was actually there.

It leaves us in the crazy situation where I cannot personally add the information to the wiki entry, but if I had time to write a biography of Johnson or even compile on online biog somewhere else on the internet – a third party could then place the information on the wiki entry with a citation reference to my work. Am I alone in seeing this as a bit of a nonsense?

I have enough stories and diary notes to write pages and pages on the Bandwagon full of anecdotal information, much of it highly scurrilous. However, I thought I was quite abstemious and sparing in what I did add. I tried to make it totally neutral and avoided any POV info, while breathing a little life and colour into several wonderful musicians. Without it the reader would have no idea that the 1970 touring band in the UK was only half of the Bandwagon or that they even toured the Northern Soul Circuit at all. Nor would there be any steer as to how Johnson met or became associated with McCauley et al. I hope you didn’t consider my amendments as vandalism or trolling, because that was certainly not my intent.Cheers 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Kiki Dee

Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good work. Have a cookie! Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon XIV

Hello, I notice you have removed 'bizarre and controversial', on the grounds of POV. But wasn't it both? And after all, it's not like we're saying 'silly and in bad taste', is it? Though that's what it was exactly - Rothorpe (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I have no problem with 'bizarre and controversial', or even 'silly and in bad taste' per se. Yes, the song was all of those things - I am old enough to remember - BUT, and here is the rub, this is an encyclopedia, where potential POV comments must be attributed to greater beings than you or I (ie references / citations from a reliable source). If you can find such a citable notation, then it may well be 'psychosymetic fruit bowl babblings'. That's why I removed the phrase. Frankly, I hate censorship and more of the 'They're Coming To Take Me Away' type nonsense is, I think, to be applauded. But my own stylistic preferences do not count in Wikipedia. I make one final comment - why did it take you around three mothns to challenge my edit? At my age three seconds is a long time (LOL). Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Foundations

Hello, I've been checking the history of this article and noticed that you have made significant contributions to it. An American has come in on the article, and is claiming that he and his band are the rightful, legal Foundations and is listing his band as the current members. As I am new here, I asked for help and someone came in and has declared a "Conflict Of Interest." I really do not understand what is going on. I wonder would you please take a look and tell me what is happening please? Many thanks, Pat Pending (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have had an input, as an aged, self-styled 'pop music historian', in The Foundations article. Indeed I have watched the recent ongoing conflict develop. Whilst I share part of your frustration; a neutral, balanced objective needs to be maintained. I suspect, from my experience, that the truth (or at least the verifiable version of the truth) will eventually emerge. Certainly, those wishing to promote their own interests are adequately scuppered under the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest banner (please read it). It is certainly not your efforts that woefully fail that criteria. Read more of the Wikipedia guidelines, cool down a touch, and return in a month or so to the fray. Wiki desperately needs emotional, passionate, forceful, bold yet balanced editors to fight the corner for the 'small men/women'. Good luck - Be bold,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had your patience Derek, but someone needs to jump in and stop this Huffman bloke editing The Foundations every few minutes. Follow the link to this US band's website and watch their so called 'live' video described as "a true representation of what you will see and hear" which starts with them miming to the original recordings by the true Foundations and continues with clips of what can only be described as a 'covers' showband, manned by a bunch of sad old fat people doing second rate country music and even 'Satchmo' impressions. They are of a standard that would find it difficult to be hired by a second rate holiday camp in the UK. They are an utter travesty. The court decision that awarded Huffman the rights to The Foundations name would not stand up in a British court and I hope he tries it one day, because he would find himself on a very expensive and sticky wicket. Can nobody stop this idiot messing with Wiki? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice and thank you both for validating my feelings with regard towards these total idiots. All the best, Pat Pending (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My frustration is this.
It took me a while to get some additional info to to contribute to The Foundations article and add to something that another member had been putting in. I also had to research and confirm American discography information before inserting it and after getting it right with dates etc the whole thing gets zapped by Huffman and co. Pat Pending has been great in correcting this problem. But tell me where is his patience going to end ? I have been thankful that he has retrieved the info to put it back. But it only lasts for a short time and then its gone.

There is something else that is an issue here but I'll not go into it yet. In the meantime why not contact Mr Clem Curtis via
http://www.clemcurtis.com/
and Alan Warner via http://www.alan-warner.com/
and ask them for yourself about this affair and the so called Huffman connection.
(George-Archer (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Anonymous user 194.83.177.252

I saw your warning on that IPs talk page, I just undid another piece of obvious vandalism [16], so Blocking the IP for anonymous use is definitely called for. Since you put the warning I assume you can have it carried out? --AkselGerner (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suspect you may already have had messages from other editors that might answer your concerns. I am not an administrator - merely a long standing sub-editor - who occasionally places 'vandal' notices where/when required. Blocking anyone is not my business (valuable and necessary, though it sometimes is). I do share your frustration. IP addresses tend to vandalise more than contribute. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I made a bit of a mess at first, but I managed to report the IP and put in an abuse report too since it's a university account.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jarrett Cordes

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jarrett Cordes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Jarrett Cordes. — Scientizzle 15:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi, I was wondering if you could leaf through your Brit sources and see if you can help me find any information on The Brooks Brothers. Apparently they scored five or so Top 40 hits in the UK (in the '50s?), but I can find nothing of substance about them online. Supposedly they sounded like The Everly Brothers and recorded for Pye Records, but I'm not sure about this. Let me know if you can help out. Thanks. Chubbles (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK; firstly they were The Brook Brothers not 'Brooks', comprising of Geoff Brook (born Geoffrey Brook, 12 April 1943, Winchester, Hampshire) and Ricky Brook (born 24 October 1940, Winchester, Hampshire). Thus, a male vocal duo.. Discography (probably partial) is-

1961 "Warpaint" - Pye Records 7N 15333 - UK #5

1961 "Ain't Gonna Wash for a Week" - Pye 7N 15369 - UK #13

1962 "He's Old Enough to Know Better" - Pye 7N 15409 - UK #37

1962 "Welcome Home Baby" - Pye 7N 15453 - UK #33

1963 "Trouble Is My Middle Name"- Pye 7N 15498 - UK #38

They took part in the annual NME Readers' Poll-Winners Concert at London's Wembley Pool on 15 April 1962. Produced by a young Tony Hatch, they were billed as Britain's answer to The Everly Brothers, and made an appearance in the film, It's Trad, Dad. Your best source for further information is probably here. [17] I suspect that the Brook Brothers' biggest success, "Warpaint", (written by Howard Greenfield and David Mann or possibly Kal Mann) was a cover of an original U.S. hit by someone (but I don't know who).

I hope this helps - it should provide enough for a 'stub' at least - maybe with this info you can now find out more for yourself. Happy editing,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I incorporated some of this text and the references into the article. Chubbles (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done - cracking good little article. Actually since I last wrote the whole thing has nagged at me, so I did a little more digging around. It turns out the co-songwriter of "Warpaint" was Barry Mann [18] - not David or Kal Mann. Too many Mann's, man ! Also it was recorded by Bill Haley, as you will see from the same AMG page. Almost certainly Haley's version was the original (see here [19]). Incidentally, The Brook Brothers entered A Song For Europe for the 1962 Eurovision Song Contest. They did not come anywhere, but probably worth a mention too, if you fancy expanding the article further. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Foundations again!

Hi again, I wonder do you know how to get someone in authority to stop this Huffman bloke? Someone needs to have very strong words with him, he's deleteing right left and centre under the name of Xtramusic, calling myself and George Archer infantile and morons after we'd spent ages working on the article. If you can help I will be very grateful, because I can't and won't take any more of him. Cheers,Pat Pending (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Try eo, who I have found both knowledgeable and helpful in the past. I believe he is an administrator, and will certainly carry more clout than you or I. I hope this helps. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Derek, I've dropped him a line, thanks. Pat Pending (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5