User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Weapons

I spotted your recent edit at Weapons and oddly I was only looking at that article myself just last week, with a sense of disbelief. Apart from the fact it contains overblown flowery language it seems to have been self written from the inside (and with no references).

Mainly I can find little proof anywhere that the band is even still active and when you analyse the hard content hidden in the guff they have really achieved nothing of note. Recorded a couple of singles with their own money, self released on their 'own label' and sold so poorly there is no record of them anywhere. Their only media appearance was on a local radio programme near their home in Wales.

My gut feeling is that we should be considering an RFD more than a rewrite. What are your thoughts here? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This is quite uncanny. Within the last fortnight or so, I saw your username around, and nearly contacted you about the overall scenerio on countless of these bands. In the end, I read your own user page and figured your real interests lie primarily elsewhere. I am aware of your general input, and know you are one of the few that edits with some gravitas on pop music matters, but not really 'knowing' you.... Anyhow, enough respect and pussy footing around.

I have been taking a look recently at categories such as [Category:British punk rock groups], [Category:British alternative rock groups], [Category:English alternative rock groups], and even on to [Category:British power pop musical groups]. I am astonished, nay embarassed, how many of the articles within these categories deal with bands that seem to be barely noteworthy. As an inclusionist, I must confess that I am alarmed that on face value (25-35%) probably fail the notability criteria altogether. Not to mention the quality of text within those that appear to barely make the grade. Honestly, Weapons, may be the tip of the iceberg. I am really loathe to put dozens of articles forward to RFD, but I would really appreciate your considered opinion, over and above this particular case.

My feeling is that many of these articles are created as bands are trying to 'make their mark'. A variant of 'as mentioned on Wikipedia' will look good on the CV. Whatever, I agree totally with your comments on Weapons. If you feel you have the time and energy, please delve further on this issue. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeuch what a nest of worms I/you/we appear to have opened. I only tripped over the Weapons via my old hometown page of Penarth, but last week I actually nominated two similar pages to AfD regarding two 'indie' bands from Caerphilly that also came to my attention last week. Even a cursory glance at a few pages in the categories you mention above sends shivers down my neck.

I am sorry but doing a few gigs in your immediate vicinity, two or three support gigs in London (or even doting parents stumping up the £15,000 - £20,000 to buy your band onto a UK tour as a bottom of the bill support band) and self releasing a few singles or an album (that you sell at gigs - or end up in packing crates in daddy's loft) does not make for any kind of notability.

Is there any kind of minimum standard for bands that marks a line in the sand over which a band does become notable? Signed by a recognised label/distributor? Record appearing in a national chart? Television appearances? National media articles?

This has to be addressed, but I am not sure I have the stamina or time to tackle it as a dedicated project. I will however have a quiet nibble at it whenever the opportunity arises. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 01:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a set of criteria used to establish notability for bands at [1]. I have a slight concern over points 2. and 11., which may be open to interpretation, but generally the level of 'fame' required is reasonably specific. I am not sure I have the will, or passion, to analyse all the acts within the categories I have mentioned. Equally, I am confident that there will be plenty more categories that will contain similar levels of dross. However, if we both eat away at the fringes, then it should improve the overall situation. Firstly, I need to familiarise myself with the process for AfD ! Just a word of caution - proposing widescale deletion of articles will not make us popular in some quarters.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess they have slipped through because, unlike well known bands' names, nobody is actually looking for them or at them. If they are not picked up by the new change patrollers when first created (or by someone idly trawling through the categories like you did) they have just hovered under the radar. I have dipped a toe in the murky water with a speedy delete on the Weapons - lets see how that rolls out. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 12:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right. As you say, let's see how Weapons fares and progress slowly from there.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Article tagging

Hello Derek. First off, apologies for not looking at more of those copyvio issues above - have been sidetracked into other areas. I notice that you've been tagging quite a few articles in punk/alternative rock/etc. categories - I have no problems with that, and can't disagree with the vast majority. Just to let you know that I have quite a few sources covering these areas and some of the articles that you've tagged are on my radar for improvement at some stage (when time permits), so if you come across any that you are inclined to push towards PROD/AFD feel free to let me know beforehand as I may be able to do enough tidying and source-adding to save you the bother of a deletion discussion. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Michig - no need to apologise to me. As far as I am concerned you are a good egg for all you have done. I note your comments regarding punk/alt rock categories - I am appalled just how many articles are way below sub-standard, and a fair proportion struggle in the notability stakes. That's from an inclusionist. I will not push anything towards AfD at the moment; not least because the processes seem to be elaborate and time consuming, and, if undertaken in sufficient numbers, likely to ruffle too many feathers. I'll be optimistic and hope that articles that are tagged will be improved in due course. My general policy is to try to improve/source articles rather than widescale tagging, but the scale of the problem, as I saw it, left me with little choice. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Help!

I cannot think of anything remotely DYK hook-worthy about this lot. Any suggestions? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Been is clearly a has-been, whilst Dondelinger, Cetera, Hoagland and Nyeholt comprise an anagram for some sexual deviation. Then there is "Ode to Missy Mxyzosptlk" which beats "Ode to Billie Joe" in a three card trick. Aorta were obviously carrying the life blood of 'the Chicago sound' and .... goodness knows what was in the mushroom stroganoff that I had for tea, but I am going to have another portion tomorrow ?!

Seriously - I am struggling like you. What might work is developing the link/connection with "Shape of Things to Come", Max Frost and the Troopers and Wild in the Streets - but it is a bit nebulous.

My wife and I are off to Scarborough tomorrow, for Yorkie Porkies against Hants SpongeBob SquarePants - we're real giddy gadabouts.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

J.D. Short

Yes. The reason that page was deleted was because it was a copy-paste of a commercial website, so the page was a copyright violation. If you avoid that, then you'll be ok. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. I'll do my best. Thanks, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The J.D. Short article is now up and running, and at Template talk:Did you know. You will notice that he was short in more ways than one!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As shall ye "woah!"

"... so shall ye weep!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tee hee. You see, I do have my uses! Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Stupidity (Dr. Feelgood album)

Derek
Hope you had a good holiday
I have added a statement from the New York Times [2] that Stupidity was the first live album to go to No1 in its first week of issue.
I just wonder what the NYT knows about British charts? Given your extensive reference library, are they correct?
Arjayay (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again - hope you are well. Had a great holiday, thank you, based in Bruges - highly recommended.

Oddly enough, I can not find another direct reference to fully back up the New York Times statement. Equally, I can not find anything specific to the contrary. It was not the first live album to top the UK Albums Chart though. Earlier examples include Cream's half live effort Goodbye (1969); Get Yer Ya-Yas Out! The Rolling Stones in Concert (1970); Concert for Bangladesh (1972); and even Max Boyce's We All Had Doctor's Papers (1975). Using my own original research, I can confirm the validity of the 'first week of issue' statement, but clearly this will not pass muster for Wikipedia purposes. Having said all that, the NYT is obviously a rock solid reliable source, and so is a genuine cite. It will need something equally definitive to contradict it, which I certainly do not believe exists.

Which is a very long way round to saying well done on the source, and one I will not dare to challenge - let a fool try ! Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Derek - although I'm not sure any newspaper that can make two spelling mistakes in one headline [3] is necessarily a reliable source ;-)
Arjayay (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well, they are Yanks so that explains a lot. Color and license for a start - but it takes a certain amount of lunacy to misspell two words in a short headline. Mind you, this is the nation that elected a b-movie actor as president.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the page Cauda Pavonis

Could you be more specific? in what way does the page require more wikification? Darqmann (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at it again, I think I may have added the wrong tag to the wrong page. There are one or two formatting issues, which I will rectify, and remove the tag. Sorry, I reckon I must have got cross-eyed on this article !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello (again)

This 1972 article claims that the band were at that time all 16, and refers to "their home area of Wood Green and Tottenham" - casting some doubt on the "born in Matlock in 1946" info. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes well, for better or for worse, here is my Jeff Allen article in glowing Bullycolour. I have a horrible feeling it's "Need Your Love So Bad" all over again. What the hell - tried my best - but definitely no DYK this time. Many thanks for your input (again).

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuddly Dudley

Hi Derek
Any idea of the DoB (or possibly death?) of Cuddly Dudley "Britain's first Black Rock N Roller", who appeared on Oh Boy! (TV series) more times than any other artist?
I know these requests get increasingly obscure but all Allmusic will say [4] is the 1930's
Arjayay (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry, I have not got this one. Although this site - [5] - which I use a lot and find very reliable, has not got him listed as having died. I'm not much use this time, I'm afraid.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Johnny Dyer

Hello! Your submission of Johnny Dyer at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Allen3 ^talk 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sleep Room

Heh, I didn't even look at the Talk page.  :) But, yeah, it was in pretty poor shape when I just happened to stumble upon it. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dan Sane DYK nomination

Hi Derek. One of the DYK reviewers has an issue or question regarding your nomination; can you take a look? Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did try to think of a better hook but haven't been inspired yet..... sorry, Derek! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem - you win some, you lose some. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Duke Henderson

Hello! Your submission of Duke Henderson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Stacia

Derek
Why did you remove the link to Stacia Blake from Roy Dyke's page?
I agree it would be better as a piped link Stacia Blake, but to keep her name on the page, but completely remove the link, seems odd.
Arjayay (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Because I was trying to edit three pages at once, never a good idea; and I've overdosed on wine gums. Said link now restored - sorry.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh! failing to multitask? Try a sex change. (Aaagh the PC police have got me......)
Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Seen this discussion? It could change things a bit.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it - although I have seen these sorts of discussions go round, and round, in circles for weeks and nothing ends up being decided, so I won't hold my breath. Good job I just got my '50' certificate ! It's funny to me that the whole interest is around DYK articles. The amount of crap there is on Wikipedia, that clearly never got anything like the scrutiny that DYKs do, is a much more serious problem to me. The fact is that Wikipedia is growing at such a rate, that the 'powers that be' have long since lost any real editorial grip. Closing the stable door... etc. Hope you are well, by the way. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Hi Derek, I believe the article Kaleidoscope (UK band) and Fairfield Parlour should be merged under the first. I am actually not so sure since the latter is also notable enough to have their own article but it's the same band same members, just the name is different. I wanted to know what you think about these two articles. And if they need to be merged, what procedure to follow? Thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you - to my mind there is insignificant difference to maintain two separate entities, and, assuming the merge is correctly facilitated, then anyone typing in 'Fairfield Parlour' would be redirected to Kaleidoscope (UK band). The rationale, guidelines and procedures are all covered under Wikipedia:Merging. Once you have made the proposal on the proposed destination article's discussion page (ie. Talk:Kaleidoscope (UK band)), I will type my agreement. It is unlikely it will draw much response, but it is prudent to leave the matter a couple of weeks to be certain that there is no viable opposition. Then, you can safely effect the merger as explained fully at Wikipedia:Merging. Is this clear ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But which name should the article be under? A tricky one... Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into the merge article a bit later. Thank you, Derek. Hi, Ghmyrtle. I'll propose to keep the "Kaleidoscope" name and merge the "Fairfield Parlour" under it. ~ Elitropia (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but ... this reference [6] indicates that not all Kaleidoscope songs were Daltrey, Pumer compositions. Incidentally were Peter and Roger Daltrey related ? Neither article makes any reference to the matter.

The pedantic Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am so aware of not to trust any article no matter in a book or in the internet about 60s after an experience I had with one of the articles. So, the source used sure could be wrong. (Please do not hesitate to edit if you think somethings are inaccurate and missing, though I will keep on adding more in the history some time later, there are still lotsa missings) We could just change the fact there like most of the songs were Daltrey, Pumer compositions. In that reference you provide, as far as I see the songs are all Daltrey, Pumer compositions though. Just the White Faced Lady are not. But that album was a product of the Fairfield Parlour that was released under the Kaleidoscope name, so yes, the change as most of the band's song would fit the situation, I believe. And, I don't think P.D and R.D were related.. I've been looking but can't seem to find anything. ~ Elitropia (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This suggests they are not related - answer to q.10. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. I completed the merge. Now when you click on Fairfield Parlour, it goes to Kaleidoscope article but the link shows up as "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairfield_Parlour#Fairfield_Parlour". Still shows the Kaleidoscope but I am not sure. Was it how it was supposed to be? If you only look for the Kaleidoscope page in google search, it gives the the latest version of the page very well, though.. ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello; it looks fine to me. I am not very technically minded, (ie. hopeless) but I do not see a problem as things stand. Don't worry - some Wiki computer nerd will probably 'un-glue' things IF they is something terribly amiss. You have done a great job. Incidentally, I think the {Refimprove} tag can be safely removed. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, then. Have a great evening. ~ Elitropia (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bessie Tucker

Hello! Your submission of Bessie Tucker at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Another try... (see DYK page). Yoninah (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you take another look? It appears it's only 1232 characters long. Perhaps it can be expanded? 28bytes (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If it were me, Derek, I'd try squeezing a few more words out of this as well as this - although it may be "speculation", it's speculation from a reliable researcher. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ghmyrtle for your thoughts - actually I was about to give up on the article but Yoninah has kindly expanded it, rather as you suggested ! All's well that .... - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Henry McCullough

Derek
You did some tidying on Henry McCullough, which (in my browser/skin at least) leaves the section line under Biography running right through the picture.
The relevant change you made was from "img_size=250" to "img_size=220px" which gives a bigger picture as well as the line (although the line may not appear in your browser). Do you know how to format this to avoid the line? or should I just revert to 250?
Arjayay (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, it's amazing what powers I have ! I have absolutely no idea about formatting in this case; particularly as the line does not appear on my screen. Well, not through the piccie anyway. Revert it back if you wish, it's certainly not a big deal to me. I have left myself a note - must stop fiddling with things I do not understand. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the line thing happen before and I think it's just a weird browser thing. Also, it depends on the exact size of the browser window so not everyone will see it, i.e. if you drag your window wider and narrower it appears and disappears. When I preview the previous version I can get the line to appear and disappear too if I drag my window border. I don't know how to fix it or anything, I'm just sayin'. :) Franamax (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Woooo, it's like Halloween. Some computer nerdy (sorry, expert) may know the answer, but it's way beyond little old me. It takes me all my time to log on, or in, or whatever it's called.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Franamax is right, both 250 and 220px settings give lines that appear/disappear depending on the window width. That's the problem with composing pages, I forget that it may suit my browser, skin and window width, but look totally different in other combinations. I'll see if there is a known fix to the line problem.
Arjayay (talk) 08:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any line there but did add some code. Now do you still see the line? ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the code, I now don't think it's the solution. Wiser suggestion from Ghmyrtle, see above ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally asked at the Help Desk. [7] but have now taken Ghmyrtle's suggestion, question is now also at [8]
Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well done. 'Browser', 'skin', 'window width', 'code', etc., are notions that I have trouble grappling with. Incidentally, is 'window width' why I can not see my front lawn (a loose expression, meaning very small expanse of weeds and tufts of green stuff), due to the build up of ice ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

COLLETTE / A WONDROUS PLACE

Thanks for your comments.

A Wondrous Place and Collette (as opposed to Wondrous Place and Colette) are the song titles registered with the MCPS, and therefore the ones that record labels (such as my own) should be using. I know this because these are the corrected titles notified to me on my licence when I wrongly submitted "Wondrous Place" and "Colette" in connection with a new release.

Peaksoft (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Harry Whitehouse

That's all very well, but it is unreferenced, and the original 1960 single (image now linked from the article itself) clearly shows the title as "Wondrous Place". If the question of the use of two different titles is sufficiently interesting it could be mentioned in the article itself. There are of course many cases where different song titles have been used for different versions of the same song at different times - it's not a question of deciding that one is "right" and the others are "wrong", it's a question of referring to the differences in the article, and naming the article on the basis of the version most commonly used and understood. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

However, "Collette" does indeed have two "L"s - here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all that - I appreciate it. The "Wondrous Place" article has been further updated and referenced by me. Incidentally, one of the co-writers of that song (Bill Giant) also co-penned Elvis Presley's "(You're the) Devil in Disguise".

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Real name Harvey Zimmerman, apparently. Shall we start a wiki-hoax that he had a Zimmerman cousin who became an even more famous songwriter..... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not, there is plenty of rubbish about, and several gullible souls are bound to fall for it !? I presume you have your next article half written then. Although you might need to move fast before the DYK criteria deadline applies (I notice they are backtracking on this somewhat). I don't see myself as an article reviewer - et vous ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The DYK proposals are just plain daft, as they say up your way. Shame that my carefully considered prose won't make it to the front page any more, but I expect I'll get over it! Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave Clark Five

Hi Derek. I see the IP address user is insisting on adding about Bobby Graham. I don't have the book that is used as a reference in the article, namely "Weinberg, Max, foreword by Bruce Springsteen, The Big Beat: Conversations with Rock's Great Drummers, Billboard Books" but I was curious and looked for an online reference, Allmusic tells it was Bobby Graham who played in Dave Clark Five and that it was revealed in 2004. What to do? Thanks in advance. ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I do not know how aware you are of the Wikipedia editing history surrounding this group (and it's leader), but I can tell you that there has been an ongoing, ding-dong battle royale, for months and months. It all boils down, as far as I can see, to those who support Clark and those out to disparage him. This manifests itself in various ways - his year of birth is constantly changed; the DC5 songwriting credits are questioned form time to time; and Clark's recording contributions are belittled. The number of edits on the article(s) are totally disporportionate to the present day importance of the act, and invariably are simply edit wars. Also, interestingly, these are nearly always made as unreferenced edits, and by IPs with no/little input elsewhere.

Frankly, I do not have any real allegiance. Plus 99.999% of the Wiki readership is probably totally disinterested in the subject matter, almost half a century on from their glory days. It is curious to me that a lot of these 'revelations' have sprung up in the last decade or so, an awful long time since the group had any relevance. To me, that smacks more of desperation and bitterness than 'fact'. The Bobby Graham article wording over whether he did, or did not, play on the DC5 singles is better balanced than the picture the IP is trying to paint on the DC5 article. Moreover, without exploring the cites, it seems better referenced. I feel that is the way to go, if you want to take it on. To be honest, having battled in vain some time ago, I rather lost the will to bother on this subject matter, when various factions bombarded me with e-mails etc., all fighting for their version of his date of birth to be posted. It rarely stopped just there either (they went on and on, driving home miniscule points that soon lost my interest).

You may be aware the the 1960s pop arena threw up all sorts of bickering over royalties, accreditation, belittling other's efforts etc., which has rumbled on for years. Invariably it is someone's word against someone elses - bearing in mind those most directly involved are in their seventies now (if still alive), and memory ain't all it used to be. Also, if these various factions had such a strong case, it would logically have been sorted in the courts decades ago. Far easier to air one's own perceived grievances on the Wikipedia stage. You may not have seen this [9]. I ask myself why does Graham deny involvement for decades and then suddenly 'spills the beans' ? Anything to do with the fact that he is an alcoholic, unwell, close to death, short of money, and sees an opportunity - call me cynical if you will.

If you want my further opinion, I think that whatever you edited in, and however well referenced and neutral in tone, it would not last more than a few hours/days before someone reverted it. This all sounds rather negative, but, just in case you were intending to wade in somewhat naively, you might as well be prepared.

Finally, the question of reliable, third party references is, of course, vital. As Wikipedia:Verifiability aptly states; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". I would say that Allmusic is very good, but certainly not infallible. Rather like me !?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thank you for this well-written explanation. It's been not long that I watch the page. And as you've noticed I did undo the edit about the drummer at first place anyways, since it was not sourced. And, yes, Allmusic sometimes fails, too. I did experience it failing very well in one of the articles I initiated. I'd prefer just to leave the area to more experienced ones, then ; ) Have a nice evening, Derek. ~ Elitropia (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

On a more general note, please do not let my age old cynicism put you off. I know you are trying hard to add edits of worth and quality - it easily beats some of the f##king idiots here. Sleep well.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Albert Hammond

Thank you for the constructive information. I am not attempting promotion by adding factual information to this entry. I have limited the content, per your recommended site usage guidelines, to what is factual (as was always the case with my additions), public record, and in line with other approved content in the same entry regarding past managers and their work with Mr. Hammond. It is very common on artist pages for management relationships to be discussed as they are relevant to the person's career. If you have any further suggestions about how to keep this content a part of the public record while respecting the Wikipedia standards, I welcome your input.

Sophia Michaels Sophiamichaels (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to you, and whilst not doubting your integrity, your edits do not address the question of verifiability. All edits should follow the Wikipedia guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Third-party sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research amongst others. Unreferenced edits such as "Hammond met Kasaan Steigen of Los-Angeles based Trigger Management who became his personal manager, leading to Hammond's collaborations with British singer Duffy and others." simply do not comply to these doctrines. The point you made about supplying factual information, is best countered by stating Wikipedia policy wording from the Verifiability section. I quote - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true".

The other points I would make are 1. The earlier reference in the article to Hammond's previous management is equally unsourced, contains a point of view, and is not 'approved content'. 2. How notable are Kasaan Steigen and Trigger Management ? - without their own Wikipedia articles, I would guess not very much. 3. Why the obsession with his management - whilst one or two notable examples of influential managers do exist, such as for Elvis Presley and The Beatles, the vast majority of Wikipedia's music based articles make no reference to artists managers. 4. Who are the managers for Madonna, Pink, Bruce Springstein, Eminem, Duffy etc., and do those articles make reference to them ? I have picked the names purely at random, and have no idea whether their articles do mention managers, but I will confidently guess that they do not.

I still feel this is an attempt to promote the said management concern, without any justifiable reason, to date, for them to be included. That is my opinion. However, the Wikipedia editing guidelines are not my opinion - and that is what is paramount here.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to you, several of your assertions are wrong. First, many articles reference management. Duffy's in fact is one axample. There are too many other to list, but a diligent search would bear you many results regarding artist's management information included in their articles. Secondly, many entertainment professionals and music fans would attest to the fact that management and related relationships are imminently relevant to artists' careers, and consequently are of interest to the public and often quite notable. In this case in particular, the management relationship had a direct and dramatic impact on the direction of a notable artist's career. It was not incidental to his life or career, which is the subject of the article. Your assertion that "one or two" examples of notable managers exist is not based in fact, and a better familiarity with music-based press and history would make this quite evident. As additional sources for the information become available, I will of course add them to the article in order to best comply with Wikipedia's mission and guidelines.

Sophiamichaels (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at the BLP Noticeboard

Hi Derek, thanks for your message. I am aware of this discussion, however, it appears to be no more at present than a sole admin. coming in and telling us what we are allegedly doing wrong. The topic appears to have almost died through lack of interest. I think that most contributors to Deaths in 2010 are unaware of the discussion, because the link on the talk page is not very informative. (The discussion should have been conducted there.) If it appears there is any significant interest in moving to footnote references, then I will certainly weigh in and defend the current position. At the moment, I am just watching the (slow) progress of the discussion. Regards, WWGB (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. I would agree that the link from the Deaths talk page to the discussion elsewhere is not very clear, and that might be at least part of the reason for the snail like progress. It would be interesting to see someone post a differing opinion though - well, any opinion for that matter. We are a long way from consensus, that's for sure. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Just a reminder to be careful when changing "British" to "English" for biographical articles, especially when there is no evidence anywhere that the subject identifies as English. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Adam crosland for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Adam crosland, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Crosland until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Anneyh (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Belinda O'Hooley

Thanks, Derek

Best wishes Headhitter (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Help for Buddy Feyne

Hi Derek,

I think you've added a need citations blurb on my dad's page: Buddy Feyne

I'm not sure what more citations are needed. Could you guide me specifically - what you suggest needs citations? I have listed info that is clearly available from the obit and from his website, and from other sites - so I'm not sure what more to do.

Thanks so much!

Itwasthelark (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)Stephanie

Hello Stephanie. You must have been so very proud of your dad. What a contribution he made towards popular music ! I know you have not been editing Wikipedia for too long, but apologies in advance if I am "teaching grandma to suck eggs".

Part of the problem with the article is that there are whole paragraphs without a citation. Wikipedia:Verifiability states, and I quote, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". Without going into fine detail, the blue wikilinks in 'citations blurb' box will lead you towards guidelines, explaining how to add in-line citations etc. So, for example, there is a sentence that states - "Feyne continued to write lyrics for black composers such as Erskine Hawkins, Bill Johnson, Dud Bascomb, Bobby Plater, Tiny Bradshaw and Edward Johnson". Where is the reliable source for that claim ? In The Independent obituary perhaps ? In which case, the sentence should finish with something like this <ref>{{cite web|url=add url address here|title=add title here|publisher=add publisher here|date=add article date here|accessdate=add the date you access the article here}}</ref>, with you filling in the 'blanks'. It is entirely likely that one citation could be used several times to source various sentences in the article. In which case, name the start of that reference block with, say, <ref name="Independent"> (instead of the plainer <ref>); and you can use this elsewhere in the simpler format style of <ref name="Independent"/> at the end of sentences/paragraphs for ease of duplication.

I usually point editors towards the Bob Dylan article. Simply because it is a gold star / featured article, and it may give you a feel of what is ultimately desirable from Wikipedia's point of view. Bix Beiderbecke is another example.

Try not to run before you can walk. You are more than welcome to come back to me for comment, or ask an administrator for more technical stuff. I use User:Rodhullandemu amongst others; most are helpful, particularly towards those who are trying to genuinely improve articles.

Do not get down-hearted - it can be immensely rewarding to try to get an article moving towards a better Wikipedia encyclopedic status, but it takes a little time, practice and patience. A bit like life itself ! As far as articles go, your dad definitely deserves a "good 'un", as we say in Yorkshire. I hope all this helps you a little bit. With best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Derek. And no, this was not "teaching grandma to suck eggs" grin. I appreciate your guidance and will try to get the citations up as soon as possible.

Would links to his website with the list of songs and co-composers be acceptable?

Unfortunately, his site no longer has separate pages, but has a nav bar - so I'd have to link it either to the basic site or to the exact page with the list. Would that work? ASCAP and the other sites are too difficult to trace song by song.

Yeah- my dad was wonderful and I am very proud of him. So thanks for letting me share him with the world through this site. I'll try to get it up to snuff or standards or whatever it's called soon. Am in school again (so will get most of it done after finals).

I may hit you up for more advice later.

Happy Holidays and happy Yorkshire!

Itwasthelark (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC) Stephanie

You're welcome. A link to his website (as near as possible to the list of songs etc.,) is fine. It is reasonable to assume that anyone interested enough can scroll/navigate from there. Actually, do not overdo links to the primary source. It may be preferable to also use secondary sources, such as Allmusic.com, Discogs.com or even Billboard.com - although I do not generally find that the latter is much use (all froth, no substance). You may find other sources too. Within reason, it is almost impossible to over reference anything. Books, of course, can be a good source too. Jaques Cattell's work, or your local library, or Google.books are worth trying. They may be more obits as well as The Independent to explore. Then there is the good old internet, full of absolute rubbish and nuggets of gold in equal measure !

Of course it all takes time, and what with your school work (I am assuming you are the teacher not the pupil ?!) and the looming Christmas period, perhaps you are busy enough at this juncture. There is no rush - feel free to return if you are stuck. Your dad's Wiki article is now on my 'watchlist', so I can keep an eye on it if necessary. Best wishes, but beware of a fat man dressed in red and white !!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Derek - Hope I'm doing this right. I added a bunch of citations - please tell me if I need more. And I was the student!! I've taught for decades but going back to school - linguistic anthro - challenging but fun (except for my last class which almost killed me:) Hope you had good holidays and that you're warmer there than we are in NYC.

Thanks for your help! Have a great 2011!

Itwasthelark (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Stephanie

Yes, Stephanie, you are doing very well. I think I stated before that more references are always helpful, and theoretically every sentence should have one - although you would be hard pressed to find many Wiki articles that are at that level. A couple of thoughts - I assume that no one can check his personal correspondence, so really that is not a reliable third-party reference. Also, there are probably plenty of sources via books, newspapers, journals, libraries etc., that could be explored if you had the energy and time. As you are studying hard, perhaps you are expending plenty of both in that pursuit alone ! Nice Christmas here, thank you, and best wishes to you, and yours for the New Year. Don't talk to me about the weather. I believe you had around 18 inches of snow in New York recently, but we have suffered minus temperatures for about six weeks solid now. Minus 15°C the other day here, the coldest I have known it in twenty years in this neck of the woods ! Whatever, my lovely wife and I are alive, safe and warm in our little cave (joke, it's a wooden shack really), so all is well.

Incidentally, did your dad sing and hum all day long ? I am always intrigued as to how/why/where songwriters get their inspiration. I have envied their talent for decades. I love music, I have all my life, but I can't hold a note in a bucket (if you understand the expression). Keep safe,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I"ll keep trying! Hope soon to have it ok.

For info about his birth name only his website would have it - which I created. Not many books get that personal.

Yes, my dad did him and sing all the time. He'd harmonize with the birds outside our home. He said "Life is a series of song cues" - and he would sing to me at the drop of a hat. As he got older, I'd sing to him and play his songs. He would wake up at 2 am and hear music in his head. And as spontaneous and creative as he was...he would spend hours working on lyrics. Most lyricists wrote the words, then the music was added. My dad (and I think Yip Harburg) wrote words to songs. So he'd play songs over and over and over and over (also at about 2 am - a really creative time for him). And he'd finesse his lyrics. One of my favorites is "Midnight Mood" - where he had lovely inner rhymes that you don't notice when you hear the song, but, like Shakespeare, work their way in:)

As for the weather, I did have to warm up to snow - we'd been having 7degree F windchill - so I feel a bit entitled to whine, especially since I grew up in LA - 80 degree christmases. Since my dreaded ARRGGGHHHchaeology class is over (yay - passed with A-...so I don't have to take it ever again) I will look for more sources.

Thanks for your support.

Happy New Year! Itwasthelark (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Stephanie

Greetings!

...and compliments of the season to you too! Any ideas for a good Christmassy hook for this article? (I'm quite pleased with it myself!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A seriously grand effort by you. Well done. It must have taken ages to put together - do I assume that you own all three copies ? Anyhow, the obvious, rather dull one, is ...that A Christmas Record was described as "the first-ever alternative Christmas album" ? But I particularly liked the James White lyrics. Something like ... that A Christmas Record included a desciption of Satan's Christmas as 'There’s no angels or wise men, and certainly no virgins.' ? It's the atheist in me, of course !

On a separate note, I am now gleefully informed by my beloved that "there are plenty of Fanny's in your family". But you've probably guessed that already !

Best wishes, Chrimbo or otherwise,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, a new first for me later today - two quite separate articles of mine in the same queue for DYK. Will the excitement never cease?! start... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I suspect not many will have achieved that feat. Well, get them in while you can. The 'review other's work' bogeyman lurks in the wings ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you have any info on album charts? I'm trying to find out whether the ZE Christmas album ever made any of the album charts - possibly in 1982? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are talking UK only, then yes I do and no it didn't (in any version). Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen

Just wanted to drop a note thanking you for tagging this article for improvement. It was one of my first major wikipedia edits a few years ago now, and I haven't really paid it much attention in the meantime even though its on my watchlist. But prompted by your tag I just had a proper look and realised how poor quality it was, you can definitely see that it was an early effort! I've now gone through the article and put in proper refs, including re-writing large chunks in light of newer refs I've now found. I'll wikify the album list at some point too. Cheers for the pointer.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome - glad to see some good editing has resulted from my tagging. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I've finished cleaning up the article. If you have time would you mind taking a quick look and giving me any feedback. I don't do a huge amount of wikipedia editing and would be grateful for the benefits of your extensive experience. Thanks, --ThePaintedOne (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a really good effort from you. You've got the article from around D- to B+ (in school report terminology), which given the sparcity of information, is fine work. I've tweaked the article further, mainly cosmetic formatting and styling changes. Frankly, I've seen much worse articles for far higher profile outfits, so you can be pleased with what you have achieved. Onto the next one then !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for the cleanup, always good to see how to make articles better in the future. Have a good holiday!--ThePaintedOne (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Congrats!

Congratulations to our five star general ; ) ~ Elitropia (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks ! The 'five star general' bit was a trifle over the top, but I am chuffed with my modest achievement. Maybe, I should be more modest !?! - Derek R Bullamore (talk)

Lookin' After No. 1

I don't care what the British Hit Singles & Albums book cites. It says on the single and on Boomtown Rats' album "Lookin' After No. 1" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongLivePunkRock (talk • contribs) 03:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the 'I don't care' attitude is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite, and is expected to report what reliable sources state, not the personal preferences of any editor. I refer you again to Wikipedia:Verifiability which, amongst other things, states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." In this case the current reliable source is the book I quoted - album/single covers are notorious for misprints, misspellings etc. Can I suggest that another reliable source is inserted in both the The Boomtown Rats article and the song's own article, so that readers can check the validity of the title. This [10] might be a good one to try.

Whilst Wikipedia welcomes edits from new editors with a passion for their subject matter, it is important to understand that there are guidelines and protocols to follow. Doing so will assist your editing, and is likely to avoid conflict with others. Never a bad thing, but particularly at this time of the year.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

DoB for Lew Lewis?

Derek
Do you have a Date of Birth for Lew Lewis formerly of Eddie and the Hot Rods and associated with Dr Feelgood
Thanks
Arjayay (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I do have Ken Lewis (Ivy League), Mark Wynter (Terence Lee Lewis), Graham Lewis (Wire), Jonah Lewie (John Lewis), Wayne Lewis (Atlantic Starr), Huey Lewis, Cass Lewis (Skunk Anansie), Linda Lewis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Shaznay Lewis (All Saints), and I can tell you that Glenn Frey's middle name is Lewis. Not that any of this helps - but shows I have no aversion to Lewis's !

Circa 1943 is about as close as I can get. Good article, by the way. One day you and I must get stuck into the Hot Rods article. It hasn't recovered from the copyvio (my fault) revision from months back.

Sorry I can't help this time.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy happy

Happy new year to the general! Thanks for the guidance all along. ~ Elitropia (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The same to you. You are always welcome here. Best wishes. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Derek R Bullamore. You have new messages at WWGB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. And a very happy new year to you too. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Graham Hine

Hi Derek, and Happy New Year,

I am rather perplexed with this bizarre article on Graham Hine, and am hoping, with your extensive knowledge of music, you could shed light on a possible, or not possible, musician. Out of courtesy, I have consulted other editors of the page thus:

"I notice that this article was flagged for speedy deletion by userWuhwuzdat which was then Criterion A7 declined. The assertion that this Hine was with Brett Marvin and the Thunderbolts and was associated with Jona Lewie and Keef Trouble is completely false. The Brett Marvin Hine ( http://www.grahamhine.com ) was born in 1949 in South London and was brought up in Crawley, and was a founder member of Brett Marvin In 1966ish, (and aka Terry Dactyl in 1970), and still is a member of that extant band. Also he never had or has cancer. Now, either this article is a spoof, or red link user KeefReef had a post Christmas brainstorm :)

The links to a website (as references) (at Jan 5th) are not recognized. When user EoGuy changed the website link to that above, user Shaky Spades returned it to the dead link. No references or external links are viable as of this date, and I cannot find any reference to this Graham Hine under the entries in Discography. What we are left with is: Graham Hine was born in Southampton 1944 and is a cancer survivor… stub for cancer survivors?

I think that the Graham Hine I refer to above is probably worth an article, but I do not think I should edit this article around him as I am too closely associated with him. However, I shall pass this on to a Wiki editor [you Derek] who has an extensive British music knowledge base for him to pass better judgement. Provisionally, I feel that userWuhwuzdat had the right idea regarding deletion."

best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too. I am struggling a bit here, because the above link to Graham Hine is a red link, so I do not know what I am supposed to be commenting upon. Accepting that I, finally, after five years writing abject rubbish here, came across a completely unrelated 'spoof article' just before Christmas, and it took me a little time to recognise it for what it was. Probably because it was the last thing I was expecting to find. I think from time to time there are those who write a new article purely to be able to brag to friends etc., "look what I did on Wikipedia". It's rather stupid, of course, but if half credible, not immediately obvious. I am guessing that is what has happened here, but using a name (perhaps without realising it) that is vaguely notable. Then subsequent editors, in good faith, put two and two together, make five, and away we go. Two more thoughts. I remember that you are related/friendly with/worked with or for/ the Thunderbolts in the past, so probably saw through the 'spoof' quicker than most. The other is the notability of the band(s). I have not explored this fully but, from dim and distant memory, I had difficulty finding much source material for either the Thunderbolts or the Dinosaurs. Which might make writing an article for the 'correct' Mr. Hine fraught with difficulty.

British blues boys are few in number, and I am a fan of blues music.... BUT the sourcing of references is perhaps an issue. You can probably tell I am swimming without a rubber ring here. Throw me a lifebuoy! I'm off to Test Match Special. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Derek. Thanks for responding. The stuff I copied to you I also sent at the same time to those who edited the article subsequent to its creation. By the time you saw this message, one of them must have got the article speedily deleted as the link was blue when I posted. Its nice to be effective :) There are responses to what now appears to be a hoax on User talk:Shaky Spades and User talk:WereSpielChequers

You are quite right, Graham is not that notable in Wiki terms - couple of records on Blue Goose, and with Jona Lewie forming Terry Dactyl for their one hit... mind you, I've seen others on Wiki with even less notability :) All the best Acabashi (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. Glad to see the matter has been speedily dealt with, and a sock puppet exposed into the bargain. On the question of notability, you are quite right that there are others with articles here that do not seemingly pass any of the criteria for inclusion. I have lost count of the number of articles I have tagged {Notability} in recent weeks. I feel there could be hundreds of such cases in the music categories alone. Actually, quite often the easiest way to spot these is to look for any references. Invariably, there are none, which often gives the game away. Either that, or the so-called references are blogs, MySpace, or the artists' own websites (which even your local pub band has). Basically, I am an inclusionist, so I never put articles up for deletion, leaving that to other editors. However, back to Graham Hine, I think you are right that his notability is doubtful/dubious, and it is probably best not to add to the previously mentioned total.

On the wider issue, I think it is way too easy for editors to create new articles. The number of new article watchers, and admins, can not keep up with the many thousands of articles on Wiki these days, and many non-notables simply fall under the radar and sit here for ever. The spoof article I spotted had been on Wiki for four and a half years ! Good on you for unearthing this spoof though. Belated thanks also for the heads up on this one. Keep up the good work. With best wishes for 2011.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stuck in the Middle With You

Any thoughts on this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2011

Delivered January 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 08:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Embarrassment

Hi Derek, you had placed a Refimprove tag on The Embarrassment's page, so I have added a bunch of references and some info regarding the 1986-1989 re-unions. Regarding the 1988 New Year's Eve reunion, the referenced article states that they played in Wichita for NYE, but it doesn't name the venue and I've not been able to find any other sources that state what the venue was, so I've left it amiguous for now.

Please check it out when you have a chance. Thanks. Robman94 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rob. You have done a great job finding all those references and, in the process, expanding the article. Well done. I do feel some of the smaller detail on support bands and venues etc., may border on fancruft, particularly where these appear to be non-notable. Maybe the reunions should be covered under just one heading. However, overall it is in far better shape as an article than it was before your timely intervention, so that is a big step in the right direction. I am not personally aware of this band, so do not feel comfortable editing this one any further. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Sonar Records

Hi again Derek,

Sorry to bother you again. I have just gone to work with an enthusiastic scythe on this article for what I think is not a particularly notable Sonar Records; another one slipping under the radar again? I have reasoning in the talk page of course. If you look at the previous version, it had no cites, links, or references, and was full of blogese and forum-speak. I may have, in my usual fashion, clipped the style too much to the dry and bare bones. Could you have a look and see if there are any references to anything left in the page, and alter or revert anything you feel fit?

Many thanks and best wishes,

--Acabashi (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can not argue with anything you have done. A record label of no stature, releasing next to nothing, from non-notable groups of nobodies, is the cruel way of viewing it. I fail to see anything notable at all. I notice that the article was created from a 'single contribution' editor, almost certainly the label's owner or closely affiliated thereto, hoping to achieve a modicum of fame. My view is that, had it been noticed at the time, it would have been a speedy delete (not my field of knowledge though). Frankly, I would add the {Notability} tag too, for a full house. I rarely venture into record label articles, but I bet this article is not the only one with notability status issues. Root 'em out, old boy !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Buddy Feyne Ok?

Hi Derek,

Hope you've had a great holiday.

I was wondering if there are enough citations to remove the box from his page? If I still need to add more, could you suggest specifically what you'd like to see? Thanks again!

Best, Itwasthelark (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Stephanie

Hello again. There is no real reason to keep the 'Citations' tag now, so you can safely remove it. Perhaps three areas I would pick out. Firstly, there is no direct citation for the birth name, birth date nor birth place, which should be easily rectified (presumably one source for all). Secondly, the paragraph beginning "In the 1960s" appears to lack an in-line referenced source for all but the last sentence. Finally, I feel the 'Songs used in films' section needs a citation adding to verify the usage - one general one would suffice rather than trying to find one for each film !

That should be sufficient; although sometimes you may find that the affiliated articles (ie. those reached via the blue links in the article) may need some work. Follow that through to its infinite conclusion, and you spend five years here making almost 36,000 edits. If you are daft enough !?! Very best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much for everything. I followed your advice. It looks good and hope it's up to the standards. Best to you for 2011 - and hope you're warmer than we are here in NYC - brrrr. Itwasthelark (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Stephanie

I have just returned from two absolutely glorious weeks in Costa Rica. Weather fantastic there - 30C plus every day. Got off the plane in London at 7 degrees, which is relatively mild here for here in early February, but what a difference ! Feyne's article now looks pretty good to me; you have done really well, Stephanie. Your dad would have been so proud of you !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ghost Box music

Hi Derek - just a heads up that I've reverted your notability tag on Ghost Box Music - see talk page of the article for details. Kaini (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kaini. Actually, I am a little confused. Firstly, the album you mention is not in Ghost Box article's discography. In addition, according to the album's own article, it was issued on Warp Records not Ghost Box Music. Plus, whilst the album may well have had coverage in the music press, this is not reflected in the references. Moreover, album notability does not necessarily spill over to the record label itself. It was a bit of a 50/50 call when I placed the tag, so I am not going to argue with your removal. I do think, however, that the article could do with a couple more third party reliable references to fully assert notability, and would benefit from some POV statements either removing or referencing. Am I being fair ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

absolutely - and you are correct, my apologies. the focus group is the project of julian house, co-founder of ghost box records - and this collaboration is the only focus group release not to appear on the ghost box label. anyway, there's plenty of coverage of this label (off the top of my head Belbury Poly featured in Bleep.com's top 100 tracks of 2010). leave it with me, and i'll do a bit of housekeeping :) Kaini (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Très bien - best wishes - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pido Lalimarmo

Hi Derek,

Just want to pick your brains as I don't know how to deal with this horror. Please look at this: Pido Lalimarmo. This one's been in this state since Nov 2009. A complete copy from a web article from 2004: [11]. How on earth has no-one picked-up on this in the last two years, especially as its got to be a copyright "crime" against Warner Music. Do I wipe the whole page and leave it with the intro sentence? Should it be reported to an administrator? Should there be a delete on it? Be grateful for your, or any of your reader's, advice.

Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Acabashi,

You don't half find them, don't you !?! Two thoughts from me. The copyvio issue is most pertinent, and there is an ultra efficient and methodical editor, User:Moonriddengirl, who knows everything there is to know about copyright violation issues. Send the case to her, and I suspect she will deal with that side of things promptly. Secondly, depending upon her, or her acolytes actions, there is the article as a whole. I have absolutely no idea who this person is, or their notability. The article is probably written purely from a promotional standpoint (not entirely unusual), and will die a natural death on the copyvio issue alone - unless you know otherwise. Sadly, there are umpteen of these types of articles on Wiki. Ho hum. Anyway, I hope this helps. Bestest fishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was going to suggest deletion as non-notable, until I discovered this....! (Sorry for butting in............ again!!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15