Talk:BBC Music Introducing

Similarities of the upload tool with Norwegian NRK Urørt project.

Just thought I'd mention this, as Norwegian broadcaster NRK has had a page where unsigned bands can upload music since 2000 (Norwegian wiki here). They also have a weekly showcase of the best bands, a yearly contest for a grant (and publicity) and a yearly tour, as well as some other projects. Perhaps BBC got the idea from there? If anyone has any information about it it would be interesting, but it's really just speculation on my part.

--KatjaKat (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Upload tool and Terms discussion

Apologies for not including the references when I initially posted my contribution.

The original/reinstated postings are not meant as a personal attack, merely to balance the argument around the positive and negative aspects of the BBC's Introducing brand and specifically the Terms users are being asked to agree to if they upload their material. I'd be very happy to remove, or for others to remove, any inaccuracies or errors once any such inaccuracies or errors have been discussed and substantiated. Was there any particular aspects of my contribution that you think is inaccurate? If so, would it have been better for you to make changes rather than deleting wholesale?

If you'd like to take part in a discussion about this, I'll try to justify my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.107.13 (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mike, as you are a BBC Essex Introducing presenter ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/essex/content/articles/2007/08/28/ollie_mike_sept_feature.shtml ) I can understand why you would have a vested interest in deleting any postings criticising the BBC Introducing brand. But as I say, I'd be very happy to get into a discussion about the article on the BBC Introducing brand. I'd love for you to convince me that I'm wrong, and that I've misunderstood the position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.107.13 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, i think your understanding is incorrect, whilst your references are correct however. The BBC cannot get an artist to waive a royalty fee, its a legal requirement that if an artist is registered with one of the performing rights societies, such as PRS for Music, that we have to pay a royalty to pay, and this amount depends on the radio stations size, listening figures, and how much music it plays. (For example, Radio One is £17 per minute, but local radio will be around 30pence). What the T&C's are ensuring, is that no artist once achieving notoriety, or before even, can return to the BBC and claim that we did not have a right to broadcast their track (which can incur costly fines if proven in the artists favor), hence the agreement. Much of your article is still written like an attack...

However, it is unclear to what degree the reliance on the Introducing brand- who has said this?

(and the system whereby the BBC's "local experts" recommend bands and artists for national attention within the BBC stable of radio stations) - this is by way of referral within the uploader tool by notification.

has had a detrimental effect on the development and exposure of those bands not prepared to agree to the classification of their songs or recordings as User Generated Content - if a band does not sign the agreement, they cannot upload their music - they still can send CDs and email mp3 attachments, many shows will accept this as a format, with no agreement.

The Introducing branded programmes heavily promote the BBC upload tool to bands as a means of getting their material broadcast, clearly suggesting that material stands very little chance of being broadcast (even at local level) if it is not submitted by the upload tool - who clearly suggest this is the only way to send music? 

With the natural inclination of artists being to facilitate the dissemination of their art - why is this a natural inclination? the vast majority of bands have no option but to agree to the unnecessarily oppressive conditions laid out in the Corporation's Terms of Use. - who said is unnecessary?

Your additional paragraphs are unjustified, personal comment it seems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebromfield (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding.

You say "The BBC cannot get an artist to waive a royalty fee, its a legal requirement that if an artist is registered with one of the performing rights societies, such as PRS for Music, that we have to pay a royalty".

I didn't actually say that the BBC "get[s]" artists "to waive a royalty fee". What I said was "users make a financial consideration towards the BBC (the waiving of royalty payments)". In fact, there is no mechanism for users of the upload tool to be paid royalties, as any material they upload can not be registered with any royalty collection organisation. If material were registered with a royalty collection organisation such as PRS for Music, users would not fulfil the requirements of the BBC's Terms for using the upload tool.

In order to agree to the BBC's Terms, artists must warrant that they own the rights embodied in the material they upload. When an artist registers a song with PRS for Music, what they are actually doing is transferring control of those rights away from themselves to PRS for Music. (I know this because I am a member of PRS for Music) Consequently, if users can legitimately use the upload tool to submit their material, royalties cannot be collected by PRS for Music (and so the BBC do not have to pay a royalty) for those songs.

If the BBC does pay royalties to artists who upload material via the upload tool, can you explain to me how this is done ?

While the T&C do ensure what you suggest; what they also do in practise is ensure that the BBC can play tracks uploaded via the upload tool without paying a royalty. If the BBC wanted to cover themselves against what you describe, the T&C could quite easily accommodate any material assigned to PRS for Music, simply by adding something like "or the material is registered with PRS for Music" to the end of the sentence which asks users to warrant that they own the material they are uploading.

Moving on to my sentence beginning "However, it is unclear..." It isn't for me to demonstrate that someone has said this, I'm not claiming anyone has. I have deliberately worded that paragraph to suggest that there are negative aspects to the upload tool and the BBC Introducing brand. This helps to balance the pro-Introducing passages you posted yourself. I would have thought that it is the responsibility of the BBC to provide evidence that their Introducing brand has no detrimental effect on the artistic development of UK music creators - they haven't done so, as far as I'm aware.

I am aware of how the referral system works within the Introducing system - but referral can only apply to material submitted in such a way as to be classed by the BBC as UGC, making the whole system biased and dependent on convincing artists to submit their material as UGC, thereby waiving royalties. The BBC Introducing FAQ page (http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/introducing/faq/) states: "all material submitted to the BBC, including audio" is classed as UGC; indicating that no matter how audio material is submitted - CDs, MP3s, etc. - it is still classed as UGC, and therefore the BBC do not pay artists a royalty. Further, in the BBC's T&C (http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms) it states: "If you do not want to grant the BBC the permission set out above on these terms, please do not submit or share your contribution to or with bbc.co.uk", giving artists no real alternative other than to agree to the Terms. I feel all this justifies the sections of my original post, which you deleted. Therefore I have reinstated them.

You didn't respond to my comment asking how the BBC can justify the fact that the Introducing system's "main filter for artistic material is not based on artistic merit but on the willingness of the artists to assign certain rights to the Corporation without charge". I realise it's difficult to cover everything, but this - along with the royalty issue - is the crux of the matter.

So, I have two questions for you:

1. Do the BBC pay royalties to artists whose material is played on the programmes falling under the Introducing brand umbrella?

2. Why is the main filter for artistic material not based on artistic merit, but on the willingness of the artists to assign certain rights to the Corporation without charge?

I will look again at the wording of the three paragraphs you deleted (and which I have now reinstated) to see if I can express the same ideas in a way that will seem to you less like a personal attack. However, I can see how in your position as a BBC Introducing presenter that you might see the comments in that way. Any criticism or negative comments, I fear, will not be to your liking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.91.2 (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you quite understand, any piece of audio used on any radio station or tv network - must be logged, and if an artist is signed up to PRS for Music, they will receive the loyalties accordingly - the answer to your first question therefore, is yes. To your second, it is based on artistic merit - if an act does has an issue with signing up to the T&C's they can simply contact BBC Introducing for further clarity, or a local show. Your misunderstanding of this seems to have led to unfounded criticisms, the criticism you have published, is your own, and not a verified sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebromfield (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i appreciate your concerns , 87.102.91.2, especially given Mike's involvement with BBC Introducing, he does prove the point that your comments are not cited or evidenced, but are more written like a personal rant, it is on this merit, that until you can put your article additions, in a coherant, cited and referanced format that I am removing your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.248.61 (talk)

I'm sorry Mike, but I think I do understand. I take your point that "any piece of audio used on any radio station or tv network - must be logged". I don't dispute that statement. Your unqualified answer to my first question above was "Yes". So, here's another question for you: If the logged music is not registered with PRS for Music, how does the BBC pay a royalty to the artist in question?

With reference to your second point - the BBC T&C are very clear:

1. All audio submitted is regarded as UGC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/introducing/faq/)

2. In submitting UGC, users agree to give the BBC permission to use the material "free of charge" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/)

In response to user 86.135.248.61 , it's clear that either you are in fact Mike - your spelling and grammar skills are remarkably similar: i.e. "referanced" - or you are another BBC-related user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.135.248.61), so I question your authority to make a ruling on this. And while I do take you point about citing and referencing, you might care to look at the complete article, including contribution by Mike and others. If you were to remove all contributions without citation or reference you would be left with no article.

In due course, I'm sure (if the 'undoing' and 'redoing' continues), someone with administrative authority form Wikipedia will pop by and adjudicate on this. Or either of us could request that a Wiki 'administrator' check out the article and make a ruling. Until then, I will reinstate my contributions. I do, however, agree that contributions to Wikipedia articles should be referenced, and so I have included more of those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.59.222 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, I think you're right, an admin of Wiki needs to look over this. If you are not registered with PRS, then you don't get paid - and this is the same across all radio UK wide. Its is regularly encouraged that acts sign up - especially as its free to do so. http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/introducing/links/ - and look, theres even a section about 'Funding Your Music'.

I dont know whether you are anti-BBC, but your clearly do not have much knowledge of unsigned music, and a very narrow-minded approach. Incidentally, I'd like to listen to the music you produce/write/record - can you link to it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebromfield (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I know that if you're not registered with PRS for Music you don't get paid (this is a crucial part of my argument), and that this is the same across all radio UK wide. But the BBC Terms (for UGC) effectively prohibit contributors to the Introducing branded programmes (if they contributors are adhering to the Terms) from being members of PRS for Music. I've tried to explain this above, but I'll try to explain more clearly and concisely (apologies for repeating myself):

1. The BBC Terms state that anyone submitting UGC (and here I'm specifically interested in audio) must own all the rights to that material (the BBC class audio submitted to the Introducing shows as UGC).

2. In registering a song with PRS for Music the songwriter is assigning the performance rights embodied in that song to PRS for Music (this has to be the case in order for PRS for Music to legally collect royalties for that song), and therefore the song writer no longer owns all the rights in that song.

Consequently, if someone who is a member of PRS for Music uploads a song that he or she has registered with PRS for Music, then he or she is breaking the agreement as defined in the BBC's Terms. Now, I don't know why the BBC insist on the Terms they do; but the situation as it stands is a consequence of those Terms. Obviously, and you'll be well aware of this, now and then songs are played during an Introducing show by established artists (let's use Jarvis Cocker, or Radiohead as possible examples). Those songs are registered with PRS for Music, and PRS for Music will collect a royalty on behalf of the songwriters of those songs. As you pointed out in a previous post, all songs are logged. Songs not registered with PRS for Music (because artists uploading those songs have been told they must own all the rights to the material they upload), even though they may be logged, do not receive a royalty payment because there is no mechanism for doing so. That's unfair.

However, you make a good point about the link to PRS for Music. I am aware of all those link, and all credit to the BBC for including them. The only thing I have a problem with - well two things really, are: the classification of audio submitted to the Introducing shows as UGC (I think that's scandalous!), and the BBC Terms. Actually, I'm quite prepared to accept that the Terms aren't really intended to mean what they say; but they do say what I claim they say, whether or not things are different in practice. I'd love there to be a clear and concise message to users when they are about to use the upload tool; something along the lines of:

"If you are a member of PRS for Music and the BBC play the music you are about to upload, you will be entitled a royalty payment. If you are not a member of PRS for Music and the BBC play the music you are about to upload, we have no mechanism for paying you a royalty."

I really have no other axe to grind with the BBC, just this one (OK, and perhaps Mark Thompson's' salary). And Mike, I do have some knowledge of unsigned music - I've been a PRS member for a very long time, since before you were born (I'm not trying to be clever saying that - it's just a fact). As for having a very narrow-minded approach, well, is it too much to ask the BBC, which is funded by licensing, to be fair and equable? Or at least to give creative artists a little more credibility than lumping their artistic endeavours in the same class (UGC) as, say, a forum posting by 'Angry from Manchester'?

Local radio playing new music from local bands, with the (admittedly remote) possibility of national airplay is a great ideal; but only if the local music makers are respected in the same way as established artists (and similarly paid a royalty for the use of their music); and preferably if their music is played alongside and in between that of established artists. As I say, an ideal.

I won't, if you don't mind, send you a link to my music (for obvious reasons: I'm an old git, and my music is an old git's music). But this isn't really about my music - honestly! I listen to a great deal of new music: live, demos, radio; I consider myself to be a supporter - in a very minor way - of new music. I think the BBC Terms are unfair. I think they form a 'restrictive agreement' and that the BBC is presiding over an 'abuse of dominant position'. For those reasons, I'll 'undo' your deletion of my previous postings. You were right to delete the sentence beginning "Consequently, bands uploading...", it is repetitious, so I won't reinstate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.239.92 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section & Upload Tool

The purpose of a criticism section is to cite criticism from recognised authorities and reliable sources. It is not so that a Wikipedia article can cite points of fact, and then criticise them. As the cites in this section were all from the BBC, I think we can safely say that the cites themselves do not contain criticism, and therefore any criticism on the page are the non-notable opinions of the contributing Wikipedia editor. So I have removed the section. Please do not restore it unless actual cites from reliable sources can be produced that contain criticism of the article subject. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have similarly removed a fair bit of the section on the upload tool as original research. Analysis of the terms and conditions cannot be performed on Wikipedia. If there is a reliable source or recognised authority that has done this, then please cite it. Otherwise this does not belong in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I question the consistency of the criteria with which you make your judgement. The whole article as you leave it is written (as pointed out by someone else) at the top of the article as "an advertisement". There needs to be a balancing view. The article as you leave it is a series of points of fact which support the BBC Introducing brand; to have some points of fact criticising the Introducing brand seems very reasonable to me. So I have reverted to the article as it was before you vandalised it.

If you wish to make constructive edits to the article, please do not remove wholesale sections. It seems to me that (besides leaving everything as it stood) you had at least two alternatives: either remove everything that is not a citation with a reference (which if applied to the material you left in place would leave you with just three sentences!); or leave the points of fact in the sections you removed but remove the criticism from those sections. Neither would leave a balanced article.

If I can give one example: the whole section on Introducing successes is the "non-notable" opinion of the contributing editor. It is inevitable that whatever system is used by the BBC for selecting bands for airplay will produce successes - this has been happening for decades (this fact also supports the criticisms I've been making as bands know this and comply with the BBC's Terms on account of this). The view that the successes referred to are wholly the result of support from BBC Introducing is farcical. However, any contributing editor who wishes to include such claims can do so; but surely such claims should be supported by citation and reference. Yet you have not removed that section.

However, if you wish to apply the same editorial criteria to the whole article, then I will take on board your views. If you insist on continuing to remove the sections you have removed, then I will seek further Wikipedia editorial opinion. If the consensus of the Wikipedia community judge that I am indeed being unreasonable, then of course I will be more than happy to leave the BBC Introducing page as it is: an advertisement for the BBC Introducing brand.

Please do not accuse other editors of "vandalism" just because you do not agree with their edits. Assume good faith. There are issues with the tone of the article but that never justifies adding personal opinions and analysis. These are fundamental policy of Wikipedia.

It is also not good enough to just remove the criticism, and leave the 'points of fact'. Details of the contracts are not significant enough to be included in the article and the emphasis on certain aspects is again essentially personal opinions and research. The editor adding them picked them out amongst everything else and decided that they were important.

If you believe that there are points within the article that need citing then please flag them approriately. If you believe there are parts that could be phrased in a more neutral manner then please do so. If you have reliable sources that criticise the brand and/or contracts then please do add them. But you cannot conduct your own research into them and put forward your own critique. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have said nothing to persuade me that your edit was justified. As the contracts restrict who can legitimately use the system, the details of the contracts are very significant, specifically to anyone intending to use the system - those to whom the article is most relevant.

If you believe that there are points within the article that need revising then please flag them appropriately. If you believe there are parts that could be phrased in a more neutral manner then please do so. But do so consistently.

I take on board your comments regarding personal opinions and research, and I will look at this again to see how I can improve my contributions in this respect.

I didn't accuse you of vandalism "just" because I didn't agree with your edits: I accused you of vandalism because you deleted sections wholesale. It would have been more constructive if you had done what you seek to encourage me to do, that is: "flag ... appropriately".

Consequently I revert to the previous version. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.94.77 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You're not following me. Can I point out a few things in you above argument?

• "As the contracts restrict who can legitimately use the system" - in your opinion.
• "the details of the contracts are very significant" - in your opinion.
• "those to whom the article is most relevant" - wrong. This is an encyclopaedia article. It is not a source of legal advice and analysis provided by someone without any verifiable credentials. The article's audience is everyone, not just those who may be thinking of signing up to it.
• "how I can improve my contributions in this respect." You can do this by citing what you say and removing what you've added that is your own analysis. Wikipedia content must be verifiable. Your opinions are not.

I would encourage you to fix these problems. I've added a tag that explains things; "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you are being very selective and partial. You seem to be able to have an opinion, but you do not seem to want me to have my own in order to decide what I would like to contribute to the article. You state above that "Details of the contracts are not significant enough to be included in the article". Surely that is your opinion. I agree with you when you say that "The article's audience is everyone"; but (in my opinion) the article is certainly of most relevance to those who use it or intend to use it. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

My contributions are not intended to be a source of legal advice, they are intended to extend the detail provided in the article. I accept that there are areas where I need to remove personal opinions from my contributions; but I would suggest (again in my opinion) that the details that help to shape those opinions are relevant, significant and essential to achieving a balanced understanding of the BBC Introducing brand.

Please see the History section, where I have applied your reasoning regarding citation. If every statement requiring citation and reference were removed from the article there would be very little of it left. I have endeavoured to provide references to the sources from which I quote information. There is only one other reference in the whole article. Why, for instance, have you not inserted a "citation needed" tag in the Successes section where there is a quotation supposedly from the band the Ting-Tings stating that they "credit BBC Introducing with giving them a 'life changing' break"?

I would appreciate it if you would apply your editing skills to the complete article, consistently.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.94.77 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's quite straight-forward. If you want to add criticism of BBC Introducing then cite a reliable source that criticises BBC Introducing. What you are doing is citing the BBC, and then criticising the contents of the cite. You are quite right that the rest of the article needs better citing, but it is usually the case that negative opinions need cites more than neutral or even vaguely positive statements. Suggesting that The Ting Tings benefited from "Introducing" is not nearly as controversial a claim as suggesting the BBC are 'abusing a dominant position'. (And putting claims in quotes as if you are quoting someone does not excuse adding unattributed opinions.)

The key policy at play here is verifiability. The article needs to present evidence that what it is saying is accurate truth as reported by a reliable source, or the thoughts of some authority who can be relied on to have a relevant and notable opinion. Your analysis of the BBC contract simply does not do this. How is the reader to know that all of this is not total guesswork put together by someone with absolutely no idea about contractual matters in the music industry?

I hope you appreciate that I have no axe to grind either way on this subject. I am just trying to apply Wikipedia policy and improve the encyclopaedia's quality. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Escape Orbit, when will these be deleted if not cited? Because I have looked and cannot see anywhere on a identifiable source to cite these critic? Is there another admin that you can call upon to help us with this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.162.88 (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping to reach agreement about removing the original research and synthesis. Failing that, I may go to Request for Comment to seek others input. And I'm not an admin, btw. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

However, if 87.102.94.77 cannot produce suitable cites within the next couple of days I will be removing the material. As it stands it is entirely original research and synthesis which can be legitimately removed. I will also try and tidy up and neutralise some of the other uncited material. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I've been giving this some thought over the past couple of days, and I've come to the conclusion that I should strip right back my contributions to the article. I can see that I am to some degree including original research and that this is probably not the place to publish it. The criticisms I am making concern the detail of the BBC Terms and Conditions, and I do think that is legitimate; but I accept that it is my criticism and not the criticism of a separate source (though I do think that what I say is the logical conclusion of the citations used). Consequently I will stick to stating the facts.

The claims you accuse me of "putting in quotes" ('abusing a dominant position' etc.) "as if you are quoting someone" clearly come from the BBC's Statement of Policy on Fair Trading; but again I accept that applying those terms to the BBC's dealings with new music creators is my own interpretation.

So, until such a time as I can produce material/criticism that is verifiable with citation and reference, I have removed the complete 'Introducing criticism' section (originally contributed by me). However, I have added a 'citation needed' tag to the unreferenced claim in the 'Introducing successes' section; and I trust the pro-Introducing claims made throughout the article will be referenced in the next week or so.

You make light of the fact that the article claims The Ting Tings "credit BBC Introducing with giving them a 'life changing' break" by saying "benefited from "Introducing" - quite a difference from "giving them a 'life changing' break" there I would suggest. I'm not suggesting that The Ting Tings never said this; merely that such a claim certainly needs to be referenced.

Finally, would you be so kind as to direct me to Wikipedia documentation that suggests that "it is usually the case that negative opinions need cites more than neutral or even vaguely positive statements".

Thanks for your input Escape Orbit. No hard feelings Mike ( Mikebromfield ) - I'm sure your helping your local Essex bands to the best of your ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.123.221 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Upload Tool - persistent deleting of relevant information

These cites come from the BBC's own web pages giving guidelines/conditions for using BBC Introducing and its upload tool. As such they are extremely relevant and significant. If you really believe that they don't relate to Introducing, then you clearly have not read the contents of the web pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.126.11 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What I believe, and you believe, is not the point. No-one cares what we believe. The point is that the second cite does not mention "Introducing", and the connection with "Introducing" is only evident through original research. Wikipedia does not permit original research.

Could you also please explain to me why this encyclopaedia should be concerning itself with the small print of the contract between the users of this service and the BBC? If anyone wants this type of detailed information then surely the best place to get it would be when they come to use it, on the BBC website itself, than second-hand though Wikipedia?

Thanks --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The second cite relates to all submissions to the BBC, including all submissions to Introducing and all submissions via the upload tool. It concerns the Intellectual Rights of everyone who submits material to Introducing branded programmes, and it reflects the approach of the BBC's Introducing branded programmes to the Intellectual rights of its users. Your argument that the second cite is is irrelevant because it does not mention the word "Introducing" is flawed. Mentioning is not the point: it is about "Introducing", and the BBC link it directly from both the Introducing FAQ page and the UGC FAQ page. Consequently, the idea that citing a link to the Terms is original research is equally flawed. The Wikipedia guidlines state: "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." I have quoted directly from the Terms, without adding any kind of analysis or discussion of them.

As to your second point: the contract between the users of the Introducing branded programmes and the BBC is crucial to the existence of the Introducing brand; it is part of the philosophy that the Introducing brand is built on, and as such is absolutely relevant to the article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.253.31 (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are still relying on your personal viewpoint that is placing undue emphasis on an synthesised detail that is has no clear relevance to the average Wikipedia reader.

The FAQ pages you are quoting from have a number of detailed legal points that do not merit being mentioned on this article. If they are relevant to the reader, by far the best place to read them is on the BBC site itself, not a second-hand interpretation by an Wikipedia editor of no verifiable legal qualifications, pieced together from three separate places. But what makes the points that you are selecting so relevant? Why nothing of the 18 other point on the FAQ? Why nothing of the dozen other points in the UGC FAQ? Why not one of the 20 other points in the BBC terms?

You say "it is part of the philosophy that the Introducing brand is built on". Please cite where this is stated anywhere. Is this not simply your personal opinion based on your personal original research? I urge you to 'read the policy on synthesis and you will see that what you are doing is a case of this. You are collating facts from a number of sources to advance a case that is not put in the cites themselves. The fact that you offer no analysis of it is a red-herring. The very fact that it is being cherry-picked out of all the other detail, is reason enough for the reader to conclude that they are being lead to an implied conclusion.

I would also ask you to not edit warring over this content. Please stop putting it back into the article while it is being discussed.

Lastly, the correct way to treat material supported by cites from a primary source is to flag it and seek third party verification. There is no grounds for deleting it unless there is a reason to question its factual accuracy. Are you saying that The Ting Tings did not say this?

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your first point. All Wikipedia editors rely to some degree on their judgement as to what to contribute to (or include in) an article. You yourself are making a judgement about what is and what is not, in your view, "undue emphasis", and what is or isn't of any "clear relevance to to the average Wikipedia reader". Please don't refer me to Wikipedia policies on the basis of your personal understanding of what they do or do not allow.

I don't dispute that the cites I introduced have been selected from the pages linked to. Your use of the phrase 'cherry-picked' betrays your opposition to any criticism of the Introducing brand. I'll state once more: I make no second-hand interpretations of legal points (or any points). These are facts relating specifically to the Introducing brand. My argument (my opinion again) is that these facts enable Wikipedia users to arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of what the BBC Introducing brand is.

If you cannot see what makes the selected quotes relevant, then clearly nothing I say is going to enlighten you. Readers can be "lead to an implied conclusion" through information edited out as well as information edited in. In editing out these contributions you are creating an unbalanced view of what the BBC introducing brand is and does. Please stop removing these contributions until some kind of consensus has been reached about what should and what should not be included.

I have edited my original contributions considerably following discussions on this page. I have been persuaded that much of what I added was unsuitable and so removed a great deal of material. Nothing you have said about the remaining contribution has persuaded me that you are right, or that I am wrong. I find I'm having to repeat again and again much of what I've expressed in previous posts on this page. Your consistent arguments about my contributions being: my opinion, my view, my interpretation, my personal viewpoint is - to use your own phrase - a red herring. Please stop recycling this constantly; the argument can easily and justifiably be fired back at you: it gets us nowhere.

However, I happily concede that my comment: "it is part of the philosophy that the Introducing brand is built on", is indeed my personal opinion. I will not attempt to replace that.

Concerning The Ting Tings: I am questioning the source and the factual accuracy of the quote. Surely it will be a very simple matter for whoever introduced the quote to make it verifiable if it is factually accurate. The link included at the moment does not support this. The claim is reproduced in quotation marks on the page but there is no reference to where and when it comes from. I asked on 2 October for that particular quote to be cited correctly and made verifiable. It hasn't been. I've read the page cited and watched the video on the page. There is no way of verifying the quote from the page linked to. Of course, I would be happy for the quote to remain once it is made verifiable.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.237.220 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I invite you to remove what you have added. What you are now doing is edit warring and is unproductive. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

When consensus is sought on disputed additions to an article, the procedure is not "leave it in until consensus is reached", it is "do not add it until consensus is reached".

"Your use of the phrase 'cherry-picked' betrays your opposition to any criticism of the Introducing brand."

So you are admitting that what you are adding is criticism? Could you explain how citing material provided by the BBC could constitute criticism of the BBC, without the use of original research? Could you also explain why you selecting one chain of points from countless others in your three cites is not cherry-picking?

"My argument (my opinion again) is that these facts enable Wikipedia users to arrive at a better understanding and appreciation of what the BBC Introducing brand is." And what if my view that other aspects of the three cites you are using give a better understanding than yours? I could remove your addition and replace it with mine, using the exact same cites, with the exact same argument to support it. You see, this is the problem with the kind of synthesis you are involved in, it becomes shaped by the opinion of the editor contributing it, rather than the reliable source(s) in the cites.

What makes this undue emphasis is the fact that these are details that are given equal prominence with a great deal of other details in the sources, and the only place they are given any emphasis beyond that is in this article. The very fact that you have collated them and placed them together on this article is "a second-hand interpretation".

I'm in agreement with your edit of the Ting Tings, now that you have explained the problem.

If we cannot agree on this. may I suggest seeking a third opinion? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please refer me to the source of your quotes "leave it in until consensus is reached" and "do not add it until consensus is reached" come from? Would the same apply if I were to remove aspects of the article I perceive to be promoting the brand?

What I am adding are facts that highlight significant aspects of the BBC Introducing Terms, a document which the BBC has drawn up in order for the brand to operate. It is, in itself, fundamental to the existence of the brand. The view as to whether any of the clauses within the Terms can or can not individually constitute a criticism of the brand is neither here nor there.

The facts I highlight are relevant and significant aspects of the brand.

Selection is a crucial part of the Wikipedia editing process. What makes one editor select a particular fact (and not others) from a particular source is a judgement call. (The discussion process is built into the system to resolve differences of opinion and viewpoint.) Clearly, as can be seen from previous discussions, I am a critic of the brand. I understand that I can not – and should not – introduce un-sourced and un-verifiable information. I am not doing so. I have selected these particular quotes from these particular sources because I believe they are important to the understanding of the brand .

As has been pointed out by someone else, much of the information in the article has been selected (or cherry-picked) in such a way as to constitute an advert for the BBC Introducing brand. Surely it is important that any Wikipedia article gives a representative and balanced picture of the subject with which it is concerned?

I appreciate your present position on the cite relating to The Ting Tings. As I say, it should be easy enough for whoever added it to find the source in order to replace it.

I would be happy for this discussion to enter in to some form of the dispute resolution process.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.107.208 (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You can read guidelines about this here. Please, remove what you have added until this matter is resolved.

If you are a critic of the brand then you should not be editing this article. Wikipedia is built on editors remaining neutral. It is not a place to campaign.

Please answer my question above. If the cites are from the BBC, then how can they be criticism of the BBC, if you have added absolutely nothing? You see, they function as criticism because you have cherry picked details and synthesised sources to lead the reader to your chosen point. You have gone through three detailed FAQs and policies and pulled together particular points from many, to highlight what you admit, is something that you wish to criticise. I can not understand how you cannot see this to be synthesis.

I have requested a third opinion. We shall see what someone else makes of it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is my third opinion. I have no previous knowledge of this controversy, or of either Amazing Radio or BBC Introducing. It seems to me that the section of the article dealing with the Upload Tool controversy should focus on the arguments being made by Amazing Radio and the BBC against one another, rather than explaining details of the terms of use for the Upload tool and the BBC overall. The cited Guardian article includes very relevant quotations that represent each side of the controversy. At present, the article very briefly, and in my opinion inadequately, quotes or paraphrases bits of those arguments. I would suggest using larger portions of the quotations (or even in their entirety) shown in the Guardian article. Doing so would give readers a better understanding of the issue involved.

The quotations I refer to (as you no doubt may anticipate) are these:

"It is an outrage that the BBC should use public funding to copy our concept and, by default, seek to put us out of business. This is to all intents and purposes a direct copy of our privately funded concept," said Campbell, a former BBC executive, in the letter to Lyons. "I am dismayed that my former employer should behave in so aggressive a manner towards a private British company. I would ask that the BBC Trust investigate BBC Introducing as a matter of urgency," he added.

"We strongly refute this suggestion. Supporting new talent is at the core of the BBC's mission and BBC Introducing has been offering unique broadcast and performance opportunities to new and unsigned musicians for over two years," she added. "We are very proud of the work BBC Introducing does in championing new artists but, as it offers quite different opportunities to other new music schemes, we would encourage new bands to explore all the avenues open to them."

(I note that the Guardian does not identify the BBC spokesperson by name.)

I won't suggest exactly how much or which parts of the above quotations to use, but I do think more of the Guardian text should be used to illuminate the arguments.

The cited details about the terms of use for the Upload Tool and the BBC seem not very relevant to the issue at hand: namely, Amazing Radio's claim of unfair competition by the BBC (use of public funding). From what I've read, Amazing Radio does not seem to be quibbling about the BBC's terms of use, but rather, is challenging the very existence of the Upload Tool. The disputed section of this article should, in my opinion, focus more clearly on that issue. DonFB (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying a third opinion. However, you've misunderstood the issue. There is no dispute about the content on the dispute between the BBC and Amazing Tunes. What is in dispute is the following paragraph which has nothing to do with Amazing Tunes. Here, it is my view, an IP editor is conducting their own synthesis to highlight what they believe is a key point of "BBC Introducing" licensing terms that everyone should know about (and they personally have a problem with). That is why you were unclear about its relevance. It has no relevance to anything. It has been cherry-picked out of three separate cites, combined and highlighted to suit the point the editor is making. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to third opinion request:

(As DonFB did not remove the entry from the WP:3O queue, I'll go ahead and toss in my 2¢, too). In my view this seems mostly a WP:UNDUE issue, whether or not there are grounds for a WP:SYNTH objection, too. It just does not seem an issue that merits so much content in relation to the rest of the article. If it is really of some central importance somehow, though, I could see maybe including at most the last line of the disputed text ("The BBC Terms state that in submitting material (including audio submissions) to the BBC, users are confirming that they 'have the right to give the BBC permission to use it for the purposes specified'.") or something to that effect. (Was the thing about the Ting Tings also something that you wanted a third opinion about...?) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)—WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Escape Orbit, thanks for the link. I've read through the page in its entirety. I'm afraid there's nothing there to support what you think it says. In fact, it seems to be saying exactly the opposite. Please bear in mind that it is you reverting my edits, which you began to do on 28 September. So I would expect you not revert my contributions until the matter is resolved.

In answer to your question - which I thought I'd answered already - the cites are not criticism of the BBC from the BBC, they are significant and relevant facts crucial to the operation of the BBC's Introducing brand. The view that they may or may not function as criticism is irrelevant. As is the fact that I am critical of the brand. I am also critical of the article as it stood before I made any contributions (as you were critical of the article after my contributions were added) - should I (you) be prevented from editing the article? Should those employed by the BBC, supporters of the Introducing brand be prevented from editing if they have a vested interest? The article was created by a BBC employee and has been continually edited by BBC employees, including presenters of Introducing branded programmes. I'm no less neutral (and no more campaigning) than most of the editors that have brought this article to how it currently stands. And simple because an editor does not declare an interest in an article does not mean they are neutral or impartial: I'm sure you are aware of that. So please do not try to discourage me from contributing to the article on the grounds that the subject is of interest to me. I'm interested in the article being balanced, accurate and as informative as possible.

Thanks also to DonFB for your comments. While the points you make about using further and more extensive quotes from the article in The Guardian are - as you rightly say - relevant to the dispute between Amazing Radio and the BBC (and something I would like to see in the article); that dispute is, I think, not particularly relevant to our discussion. What I am hoping to bring to the article is some knowledge about how the Introducing brand operates: namely, by classifying all uploads and audio submissions (however they are received) as User Generated Content the BBC Terms allow the Corporation to use that material however they choose and free from charge. I think this is a significant aspect of the brand, and is in direct contrast to the way in which the BBC operates outside the Introducing brand. For example, would the BBC classify the latest CD album by, say, eminem or Kanye West or Robbie Williams as UGC? It's a departure from the traditional BBC operational model and is therefore important and relevant in that respect.

So while Escape Orbit objects to the contribution in question on the grounds that it functions as criticism, I have added these cites to highlight the departure from the traditional BBC model that the Introducing brand represents. Clearly the cites I have included have been selected from a range of terms and FAQs, but they were selected because they (rather than different cites) best highlight the departure from what went before. My contributions are in no way concerned with the BBC/Amazing Radio dispute; nor are they intended as support for Amazing Radio's views. There are plenty of additional aspects to that dispute that could be raised (such as Amazing Radio provide - I believe - a facility for users to support the creators of the music played by buying their music, whereas the BBC do not) and (the BBC Trust's insistence that any complaint by Amazing Radio should go through the BBC's usual, long-winded, complaints procedure before they themselves even look at it)- but contributing to that debate is not my current concern.

I would be grateful DonFB if you would give your view on whether you consider the disputed contribution relevant in the way I've tried to describe. Thanks again for your mediation.

Thanks also to WikiDao for responding to the request for a third opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.115.205 (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see (I hope). You (77.86.115.205) said, "I have added these cites to highlight the departure from the traditional BBC model that the Introducing brand represents." I'll take your word for it that the BBC Introducting service/brand is a "departure from what went before," as you put it. If that is the case, and you want to highlight it as such, it does seem to me that you would need a reliable source to make that point, rather than making it yourself by drawing on primary sources (the Terms of Use). In my reading, nothing in the paragraph makes the point that the BBC Introducing use of music is different from some earlier BBC method. The paragraph simply explains some Terms of Use, but makes no comparison and supplies no context.

Thus, I can understand Escape Orbit's comments in which he asserts you are engaged in synthesis to make a point ("departure from the traditional model"), a point which perhaps does not exist in any citable secondary (or tertiary) source. The fact that you are drawing upon primary sources (the BBC's Terms of Use) lends support to the idea that these particular contributions of yours to the article amount to synthesis, or original research. In adding the cited information, however, you have not written expository text which actually makes your point about BBC's "departure" from its usual model. Thus, your text could be viewed as an attempt to circumvent the rule against synthesis by carefully avoiding an overt statement, such as, "BBC Introducing represents a departure from its traditional model...." The absence of such an explanatory sentence to begin the paragraph also accounts, I suppose, for my initial utter misunderstanding of the intent of the paragraph.

Given your stated purpose in adding the paragraph (to point out BBC's "departure" from its previous model), it would seem highly appropriate to begin the paragraph with such an explanatory sentence, and then support it with the cited material. But, lacking a verifiable source, such an opening sentence would probably constitute overt synthesis or merely editorial opinion, which perhaps explains why you did not write it. I would even ask, why did you not write an opening sentence for the paragraph which straightforwardly makes the point you wish to make? Given the lack of an explanatatory opening sentence, the information in the paragraph does not seem to serve any purpose. Some readers familiar with the matter may see significance in the cited text, but most readers probably will not. In that sense, the paragraph amounts to a kind of "code" to communicate a point to those interested in the subject, but holds little significance or even misdirects others (like myself) into thinking the paragraph somehow relates to the Amazing Radio controversy, discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

It seems to me that without a secondary source to make your point, the only recourse you would have is to find contrasting items in an earlier Terms of Use (or equivalent) to show the difference between what went before and what now exists. But doing that could also be seen as synthesis or original research.

Why is BBC's "departure" from its model is notable? Is your fundamental point that BBC is "exploiting" or taking unfair advantage of music creators by offering them no payment, in contrast to its earlier protocol? If this is the heart of the issue, I would think information and commentary, perhaps a lot it, would exist on the subject in various secondary sources--magazines, newspapers and music industry websites--and would be readily available as citations to make your point explicitly. DonFB (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input, DonFB. I am in total agreement with you. The IP editor is, by practically their own admission, putting forward an argument of their own making, constructed from cites on a source that does not contain this argument. Avoidance of stating anything concrete out of these cites, other than what has been said on this talk page, does not hide the fact that the reader is being carefully lead to make a conclusion based on a synthesis of cherry picked points. If this was not the purpose of this addition to the article, the entire paragraph is nothing but a slightly odd non-sequitur with no clear relevance or point. So we have WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE and an admission of WP:SOAP. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"I'm afraid there's nothing there to support what you think it says. In fact, it seems to be saying exactly the opposite. Please bear in mind that it is you reverting my edits, which you began to do on 28 September. So I would expect you not revert my contributions until the matter is resolved." Could you please read it again. What is discussed there is a BRD process of;

• B - Being Bold. You added your content. Thank you, this is how Wikipedia works.
• R - It was Reverted. Another editor believed there was problems with your addition.
• D - Now is the time for Discussion to address the matter and hopefully reach consensus.

So you see, the processes is not Bold-Revert-Revert-Discuss. The onus is on you to justify why it is a suitable addition to the article that enhances the quality of Wikipedia. It is not for everyone else to justify why it should not be there before it can be removed.

Could I also ask you to create an account please. Your IP address is variable and it makes it difficult to have a conversation or to trace events while you remain unidentifiable. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again DonFB, for spending time on this. I think you have a good understanding of the discussion now. I believe it's clear that I have tried to be open and honest about my views. I understand what you say about expository text, and your view on why I haven't attempted to provided any is correct. Also, I do understand the principle of WP:SYNTHESIS. My argument for leaving my contribution in place is based on the following criterion:

The cites I include increase the understanding of how the Introducing brand operates.

Now, whether or not I am a critic or supporter of the brand; whether or not I'm trying to highlight a particular point; whether or not I'm a registered user/editor of Wikipedia; the final outcome must be based on that criteria. I believe the contributions I'm making contribute significantly to the understanding of the BBC Introducing brand. I don't agree that the cites constitute "nothing but a slightly odd non-sequitur".

However, if, ultimately, the consensus is that the cites do not significantly contribute to the understanding of the BBC Introducing brand, and that they do in fact constitute WP:SYNTHESIS, then I am prepared to accept that view (until such a time as I can provide reliable secondary source information). In that event I would like to suggest the following alternative paragraph with the hope that it might satisfy all concerned:

"All material submitted to the BBC Introducing brand via the upload tool is classified by the BBC as User Generated Content (UGC), and they encourage users to read the Corporation's Terms of Use in relation to UGC before uploading material."

I would suggest that this paragraph comes before the paragraph relating to the dispute between the BBC and Amazing Radio.

I would also like to request that editors involved in this discussion who are genuinely interested in helping to make the BBC Introducing article balanced and neutral, apply the same criteria used to classify my contributions as WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP to the article as a whole.

Thanks.

I'm happy to accept and implement your suggest compromise. It still seems like undue emphasis to me, but is far less a case of leading the reader through synthesis. Thank you for making this discussion constructive. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Successes

Again, RE: comments from 213.249.237.220 at 21:23 on 24 October 2010 on the talk pages, on The Ting Tings.

I am questioning the source and the factual accuracy of the quote. Surely it will be a very simple matter for whoever introduced the quote to make it verifiable if it is factually accurate. The link included at the moment does not support this. The claim is reproduced in quotation marks on the page but there is no reference to where and when it comes from. I asked on 2 October for that particular quote to be cited correctly and made verifiable. It hasn't been. I've read the page cited and watched the video on the page. There is no way of verifying the quote from the page linked to. Of course, I would be happy for the quote to remain once it is made verifiable.

It seems that many articles across the internet, reference Katie White saying that BBC Introducing gave them a 'life changing break', including their biography on Absolute Radio, so I have reverted your edits. It would appear that you may have some sort of vendetta against BBC Introducing as you do not appear to edit anything else on Wikipedia other than this one article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.200.178 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide links to any of these many article across the internet? There really should be a cite for this quotation if it is to remain in the article. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Escape Orbit. You surprised me - I was waiting for someone to comment on this post. The second link (to Absolute Radio) reproduces material (un-sourced) from the Wikipedia article on The Ting Tings (it actually says at the bottom of the page "Biography from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.") Neither this, the first link provided (the BBC Glastonbury 2008 web page), nor the 'BBC Introducing' Wikipedia article gives a source for the quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.119.77 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It took my ages to find the original source of the quote - I knew I had read it somewhere at the time as I am a fan of The Ting Tings. It is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2008/05_may/19/ting.shtml, which gives the full quote, that also explains that they put it down to the TV coverage of Glastonbury.

Good job tracking that down. That's much better, thanks. But I was wondering if the content could be changed to quote what the band actually said? The cite seems to be paraphrasing when it says "life-changing", but this is then given the appearance of an actual quote on the article. Maybe the did say it, but it's a bit ambiguous. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I don't mean to be obstructive here, but the quote still originates from the BBC Press Office, with no reference to where the original quote comes from. And as Escape Orbit points out, "The cite seems to be paraphrasing". So it is still (currently) unverifiable. And which member of The Ting Tings is being quoted? Is it Katie White? The BBC Press Office statement doesn't say.

Could the content somehow be changed (at least until the full original comment can be sourced) to reflect what is actually quoted? Namely: their "lives changed forever" "From the moment" of the band's appearance on the "BBC Introducing...stage at Glastonbury" and the fact that they "got noticed by the whole country!" due to the Glastonbury "TV coverage that weekend". I'm not suggesting everything I've mentioned should be quoted, but the three factors involved are the BBC Introducing stage, Glastonbury, and the TV coverage.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.9.40 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

True 77.86.9.40, but if the original quote was to the BBC, and specifically the press office, which is where it seems the full quotation is, then surely this is the verifiable source? Escape Orbit does this read better (obviously with the correct citation in place):

The BBC hosted an Introducing stage at Glastonbury Festival for the first time in 2007. One notable act selected to perform was The Ting Tings, that in May 2008, credit BBC Introducing saying 'From the moment we played on the BBC Introducing... stage at Glastonbury last year, our lives changed forever'. BBC Introducing has also assisted acts such as Florence and the Machine, The Temper Trap, Chipmunk, Marina and the Diamonds and Stornoway reach a larger market.

Any other ideas? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.200.178 (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a quote at all? It's a bit wordy and could be summarised accurately and neutrally. Why not just something like; "The Ting Tings credit 'Introducing' for bringing them to the attention of the UK public through its coverage of Glastonbury." --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way of putting it to me then! I will implement unless any other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.183.249 (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BBC Introducing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101021060827/http://www.btdma.com:80/winners.aspx to http://www.btdma.com/winners.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Italics?

BBC Introducing or BBC Introducing, italicised or not? Rothorpe (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on BBC Introducing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724000757/http://nightshift.oxfordmusic.net/2008/sep.pdf to http://nightshift.oxfordmusic.net/2008/sep.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)