Talk:Bad Boys Blue

/Archive 1

Kenny "Krayzee" Lewis is a new bad boy!

In September 2011 John has made the decision to finish working with Carlos.

In October 2011 the group was joined by Kenny “Krayzee” Lewis, known from collaboration with C.C.Catch, Touché and Mark ‘Oh.

Late in the year 2011 John has made the decision to finish working with "Krayzee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmarskiy II (talk • contribs) 12:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep this page fair and objective

This page has maintained neutrality for an extended period of time - thanks to coherent & mutually respectful work of a number of contributors. Disruptors attempting to thwart this process will not be tolerated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.211.174 (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Repeated vandalism by user 89.200.212.78

This page has become a subject of systematic vandalism by a user from Holland who deliberately obliterates neutral info on this page and conveniently replaces it with biased nonsense. Protection of the article has been requested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.61.84 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Hi - I noticed the dates of birth have been changed - would someone kindly correct them as they make no sense at the moment. Many thanks, Rob in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.165.181 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Come Back And Stay - Trevor Taylor's original version

I saw the other day this version offered for sale on ebay, which went up for... over $500(!) before it got pulled. I don't if that was real or just a work of some scammer, but one thing is clear for sure: there are people out there who know and appreciate the real vocalist of Bad Boys Blue - 20 year after he was kicked out from the group... and are willing to shell out a few hundred bucks just to hear this voice on the track. What do you know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.54.187 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

for user: Harout72

Please refrain from future non-constructive alterations to the article that has been well maintained for over a year. Repeated alterations of similar nature will constitute vandalism to the article and will be treated as such.

If you concider having an image of Bad Boys Blue with John McInerney, Andrew Thomas and Kevin McCoy in it a vandalism then you might want to familiarize yourself with what the members of Bad Boys Blue look like. First of all, vandalism is when one replaces the correct information with the wrong or when adds an irrational information. In my case, however, I did not do any of the above. Second of all, the proper nouns in wikipedia are to be double bracketted for redirection purposes. Harout72

Excuse me please, but you're welcome to add images to this page, as long as YOU are familiar with band members YOURSELF, and as long as you do not create links to people that had nothing to do with BBB. You put in an image from 'Continued' album which was released in 1999, when there was no McCoy in the line-up. Your insisting on misnaming the two members is a clear indication that you are either uninformed at best or vandalizing at worst. 1) Look at the band roster to see who was a member and who was not in a particular year. 2) Find out what Mo Russel looks like and what McCoy looks like. 3) Add images with accurate, not misleading, descriptions. 4) In general, do only constructive alterations - as you may nave done with "proper nouns", but no double brackets to unrelated material, please.

P.S. McCoy joined BBB after the release of "Follow the light" (the last album to include Mo Russel), therefore he appeared only on "Tonite" album.

Well, if the name of the third member was incorrect (whose purpose within the act as we all know was temporary and quite remote) you perhaps could have corrected it yourself if you that well reconized that the image was from 1999 album Continued insead of tagging me with a name "VANDALIZER". Especially, when you, yourself say that we are welcome to add images of BBB. And don't you think the name of the producer Tony Hendrik or the name of the country Germany he's from from should be double bracketted? Harout72

First of all, user, whose IP starts with 66, made that correction a few days ago, which you reverted (as a vandalizer). Then today, I originally reverted it to his edit, but when I saw all your ridiculous reference pages with the grossly abused usage of double brackets, I realized that it would not be reasonable for me, or for anybody else to sort through your 50 double brackets in order to find 5 that were not wrongly applied. Please re-read my comments above: you're welcome to use double brackets as long as they point to the right areas/people.

FYI, With all the due respect, not too long ago, we had an idiot screwing BBB page with claims that Andrew Thomas is the lead vocalist who replaced Trevor Taylor in 87. Having said that, I would hope that you, Harout72, can contribute more to the article rather than your Russel/McCoy nonsense.

No one, except you, knows that Mo Russel's role was temporary and quite remote between 95-99. What "we" instead all know is that Russel revived the band back in 1995 with coming very close to challenging McInerney's spot on lead vocals and as a composer as well. With the group's return to Coconut, Russel got progressively sidelined, just like Andrew Thomas did. That was the reason for Russel's departure. Your continued attempts to denigrate Russel contribution/appearance can leave one wondering as to whether you are really so innocently uninformed.

Good luck pal, you don't want a picture of BBB, you don't want to double bracket the name of the producer, you don't want to double bracket the countries UK, eastern Europe, south Africa where they have been massively popular that's your business, I am not going to continue this quarrel. Take care Harout72

Good. You're free to take your nonsense and pointless demagogy to the kind of places where it would be welcomed. All the best.

As you wish your Honor

Page protection should be implemented to this article to prevent it from daily vandalism.

An IP-hopper - turned - Atbbb user vandalized the page at least 10 times as of today. After monitoring the page for some time, it is clear what this vandal is doing on daily basis. His intent is to disrupt the article and twist it in the way he/she feels fit. Not a single edit of the user had been constructive. The page should be protected to keep vandals like Atbbb away. Esoteriqa 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that Atbbb could be a sock-puppet of a user who several weeks ago added an image of himself together with... john's formation, namely Zureks. If you look at the pattern of edits done on bbb pages of several other languages, including german and french, you will see a striking resemblance in IP's of this IP-hopper prior to his becoming Atbbb AND user Zureks along with his non-user name IP entries, at the time of the same image being uploaded on various pages by this Zureks or his non-user name IP version. I suspect that since he clearly supports john's formation and wanted to have only that image on the bbb pages, he decided to create a diversion, supposedly promoting andrew's formation, in order to have the latter eventually removed. That is, the goal is to make enough ridiculous alterations, "promoting" andrew's (less significant) formation as a more important one, that will make any mentioning of andrew's formation so annoying that eventually it will have to be removed from the page all together. After all, not that many bbb wiki pages tend to even mention about andrew's formation. So, it would be very convenient for john's formation supporter to indirectly cause to have andrew's formation obliterated from wiki. In fact, Atbbb made a (very twisted) reference to the same image as the one posted by Zureks, in a way that would not make sense... unless you can find a direct connection between these two user names. I could be wrong with this sock-puppet theory, but I doubt that I am. 76.217.121.173 05:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined The page is hardly being vandalised daily. Yes, vandalism is frustrating, but I won't protect the page for one person who is vandalising the page once every few days. Feel free to request a review of this at WP:ANI. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

the same s.o.b. made 15 reverts since November 24. look at the article history page. not enough vandalizing, eh? sure... whatever you say. 99.144.178.237 (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"The page is hardly being vandalised daily." Really? Let's see: between Nov. 24 & Dec. 16 there are about 23 days, during which there were about 15 reverts made. So, 15/23 is about 2/3 which means the page is regularly vandalized on 2 occasions during every 3 days. I say, 2 out of 3 is close enough to call it "daily". I highly doubt you're that mathematically challenged not to realize it. I'm sure you can do better than just giving a nonsensical excuses for declining valid page protection requests. USRepublican (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One more point. Look at the thread-starter's initial entry: Dec. 3, when he says like "it's a 10th vandalism attempt". Between Nov. 24 & Dec. 3 there are EXACTLY 10 days!!! "Hardly daily"??? Do you even know what you're talking about? I hope this is not how you earned your editorial stars. USRepublican (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Page-protection is generally for massive moment-by moment vandalism attacks, across several IP addresses. This guy shows up every week or so, makes a dick of himself and gets reverted. Also, calling an admin 'ignorant', simply because they aren't jumping through hoops for you isn't going to help your case, nor is insulting the vandal in your edit summaries. HalfShadow (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a better idea? (btw, I'm the "IP range" who's done most of the reverts - now I have my account) Lionscitygl (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Beyond 'Revert, wipe, continue', no. Unless you're getting hit every few minutes or so, you'd be told basically the same thing on the request page: You're just not getting hit hard enough to warrant protection yet. This guys is almost literally doing it only a couple of times a day when he does it at all. HalfShadow (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. If my theory (2nd post in the thread) is correct then it is the guy who knows the system well enough to avoid the 3rr rule or the warrant to have the page he trashes be protected, because the user in question is actually an admin in Polish wiki. That's why I say that the vandal is not some dumbass whom he tries to portray - he actually knows exactly what he's doing. Lionscitygl (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The pending edit war

I can understand why some editors want to revert some of the changes made by the now-blocked COI user BAD BOYS BLUE. But you can't just revert to the version of the article from before those changes were made, because other changes have been made since then. Also, the edits made by user BAD BOYS BLUE were not entirely vandalism. Some of the changes removed some blatant promotional spam, and fixed some other problems like inline external links, and to put that back in now would be a mistake.

I'm afraid at this point the best you can do is go through the article section by section. A bulk revert to some point in the past isn't going to work. Rees11 (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the banned user's edits were not entirely vandalism, and I did already incorporate a few of his inputs in the article. If he placed a valid point in it - there' s no reason why it shouldn't stay. All of my most recent edits show a transition of the article to the form that it will assume eventually, edit by edit, including incorporation BADBOYSBLUE's edits, as well as yours, and other contributors - all valid inputs will be incorporated, I only ask that the October 6 version is not used as a template for revisions. Please rest assured, the article will not stay in its present form, just allow some time for the process to take place. Esoteriqa (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@Rees11 I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader BUT I have a copy of Bad Boys Blue's self titled album from 1983. The two American hits are even listed in Billboard in 1983. The line-up is the same so it's the same group. Did they 'form' in 1984 because of the success of their debut? 2602:306:CD2C:6CD0:FC56:6499:873D:514C (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you upload any proof of that? I searched Billboard's database and could only find chart entries for Save Your Love and I Totally Miss You 2600:8805:828A:4300:30C1:D8EE:1AD9:DEC9 (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You may want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Rees11 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked

I have locked the article after receiving a complaint, reviewing the article, and deciding that Esoteriqa's version is not well sourced enough to comple with WP:BLP. It won't be unlocked until that version is better sourced. The new version can be drafted at /New. There are also problems with the new version linking to copyrighted works on Youtube - ensure this doesn't happen, please. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Member of the band can make up anything he/she wants to and accuse a neutral version as a made up one instead. Whose word do you take? Looks like his/her self-promotion got paid off. Esoteriqa (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the attention this article has received recently, including the attention from the editors you are reverting, has been because the "BADBOYS BLUE" editor was making inappropriate edits to the article, so I doubt that anyone here wants that self-promotion to stay. Esoteriqa, you are well within your rights to undo the edits made by an editor who was blocked for making such edits. No fault to you for your desire to do so, it's pretty routine in fact. But if another editor objects to the removal, or at least wants to use some of the material that was added, you are no longer in dispute with that blocked editor but you are in dispute with the new editors. Insisting on reverting everything back to an old version, undoing both the edits of the blocked editor and the contributions of editors in good standing is not a good thing for you to do. You've only succeeded in halting some badly-needed improvement in this article.

You seem to have the same goal as everyone else currently working on the article, to remove bad information and clean it up. So it shouldn't be difficult to work with others. But you're attempting to ensure that the article is only edited your way and Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You have to collaborate with other editors. I'm actually dismayed by this because looking at your history on this article you don't seem to have had a problem working with other people in the past, so why now? -- Atama頭 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I was not insisting on reverting the article back to the old form, only to the old template, from which I made more than a dozen of changes already - before the process came to a screeching halt. The reason why I wanted to edit the page a certain way, as you pointed out, because the new editors are clueless as to the content of the article, yet it is the version that obliterated the core paragraph of the article addressing the transition as well as deletion of all trivia among other things - is what the new editors were working off, and this is what I was dismayed by. Esoteriqa (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem. Statements like "new editors are clueless as to the content of the article" show how you are unwilling to collaborate. Wikipedia works on consensus. Everyone can view the article history and can also read what's in the article now, so it's unnecessary for you to assume that other editors are blind in some way that you are not. You're assumption that other editors are "clueless" is going to stand in the way of developing this article. You also need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP which your personal "template" is in violation of. -- Atama頭 01:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. However, I wanted to continue altering template as well as incorporating new edits from new editors - I've said that time and again. Right now technicalities stand in the way of improving the article. I am just not sure if my further input in it will be worthwhile. Esoteriqa (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Esoteriqa, that template - if I know what template you mean - is simply not acceptable from a BLP point of view - it can't form the basis of any new article. Sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

@Atama @Rees11 I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader BUT I have a copy of Bad Boys Blue's self titled album from 1983. The two American hits are even listed in Billboard in 1983. The line-up is the same so it's the same group. Did they 'form' in 1984 because of the success of their debut? 2602:306:CD2C:6CD0:FC56:6499:873D:514C (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg

{{editprotected}}

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg needs to be removed from the artist infobox as a non-fair use of an album cover per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Aspects (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

NFC doesn't allow for album covers as part of discographies; however, individually, they're OK as long as they've got fair-use criteria. It would be safe to shrink that image a little bit, though... m.o.p 01:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlisted Remixalbum

I bought a remix album at amazon.com entitled "Rarities Remixed", which is not in the list. But why? --77.118.139.242 (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted Picture

{{editprotected}}

File:Bad Boys Blue - Heartbeat album cover 1986.jpg needs to be removed from the artist infobox because the image was deleted per a File for deletion discussion. Aspects (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect?

Is everyone calmer now?andycjp (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the person posting as 'badboysblue' everyone appeared to be calm all along, btw. Thanks to that character, nobody wants to touch this article anymore, and prefers to see it left in its present, totally worthless, form. Lionscitygl (talk) 04:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this page needs to be unprotected. It needs to be wikified, and "new wave" should be added to genre in infobox.98.110.5.124 (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and the paragraph below about Trevor, that was dropped from the article at the request of the troublemaker, will have to go back in as well:

Charismatic Trevor Taylor provided his unique lead vocal for the group's early, signature defining, hit singles including You're A Woman, Pretty Young Girl, and I Wanna Hear Your Heartbeat, as well as for the entire first two albums. He essentially owns the credit for placing Bad Boys Blue on the "map" with his unique vocal presentation style. However, a second 1987 single Come Back And Stay, from the 3rd album, no longer featured him on lead vocal. Although the track was originally recorded as demo with Trevor Taylor's voice, the producers subjectively chose John McInerney's version. A major pretext which prompted the switch was the song by the Pet Shop Boys, called It's a Sin, which was released a few months prior to Come Back And Stay. The Bad Boys Blue producers made the sound of Come Back And Stay in the image of the Pet Shop Boys song. However, It's a Sin, which already at the time scored very high on many European charts was sung by a voice that was much higher than that of Trevor Taylor's. Hence came the idea to give the song to John McInerney, who also had a higher voice - in order to ensure a greater degree of similarity between the two songs. The Bad Boys Blue producers in a way hoped that it would create a greater chance of success for Come Back And Stay release. This, in turn, created tension within the group which ultimately lead to Trevor Taylor's departure, who understandably did not wish to accept the changes. A noteworthy fact is that Trevor Taylor did not leave the group right away following the switch, and stayed with the group for a whole year, during which he was incrementally phased out from his position of the front-man. During that transitional period his participation as the lead singer dropped first to 60% and then to 20% of songs sung on the 3rd and the 4th albums, respectively. That move was not incidental, for it was a key strategy implemented by the producers to ensure survivability and continuity of their project, that is to make sure in the public eye that both Taylor and McInerney were still present in the group, only that their respective positions had been switched, where the fans were now expected to become accustomed to seeing Taylor appear in the shadow of McInerney. Only after McInerney appeared on enough of new tracks as lead singer, Taylor could finally leave the group. This move was made possible by contractual obligations established by the Bad Boys Blue producers which legally prevented Trevor Taylor from exiting the band prematurely (that is, not until the transition period was completed), and therefore the producers were guaranteed to have a smooth continuation of their project. Had this transition been abrupt, namely if Trevor Taylor was allowed to leave the group right away as he intended to (in order to avoid a soon-to-be established stigma of him being perceived as demoted from his original role), the McInerney-lead collective would have experienced similar problems in the area of public acknowledgment that the formation of the late Andrew Thomas (see below) was facing. However, it is important to recognize that a mere substitution of vocalists on the release of Come Back And Stay was not the culprit itself, for it did not really account for Trevor Taylor's wish to promptly leave the group after a seemingly single substitution incident. That's because the release of the song was just an opportunity, an excuse so to speak, for the producers to remove Trevor Taylor for good from his being the front-man. This stems from the fact that, despite the group's massive popularity, the producers nevertheless were not particularly happy with Trevor Taylor's unique representation of the group as the lead singer, who was the only member of the original trio to regularly contribute his own material for the albums, and whose overall peculiar sound and singing style was broadcasting the group's image in a way that was different from the one subjectively envisioned for the Bad Boys Blue by the producers. In other words, the producers were determined to have their project portrayed solely as they saw fit, and the release of Come Back And Stay was their venue of implementation of the permanent switch - towards the singer who would be more conforming to their idiosyncratic ideas. Such an action on the producers' part was not uniformly accepted throughout the fan base, as it is generally believed that a significant portion of fans was lost following the switch of lead vocalists. After leaving Bad Boys Blue, Trevor Taylor had been involved at some point in various projects, such as Street Noise and Osazuwas, and more recently in Supa T and Umoya, whereas John McInerney went on to perform lead vocal on the majority of Bad Boys Blue's output.

...Lionscitygl (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Link needs updating

Due to the level of protection i cannot make this minor edit myself so:

The link Zoo Entertainment needs to be changed to Zoo Entertainment (record label) due to a disambiguation of Zoo Entertainment.

Thanks, Salavat (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please add: they rank among the 100 best-selling artists in Finland

Hi, could the admins please add this? Thanks. -- Frous (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

==See also==
* [[List of best-selling music artists in Finland]]

Interwiki

Please add uk:Bad Boys Blue to the article --Perohanych (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Line-up information

Can you please change the line-up information. Should be like this: 2009-2011

• John McInerney
• Carlos Ferreira

2011-2012

• John McInerney
• Sylvia McInerney
• Edith Miracle
• Krayzee

2012-Present

• John McInerney
• Sylvia McInerney
• Edith Miracle

Source: The official Bad Boys Blue website: http://www.badboysblue.info/ Oneandmillion (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Seems like an uncontroversial change, supported by their own website. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

March 2014, still no mention of Edith and Sylvia on the article page. In youtube videos it is obvious that there are female singers in the group. http://www.badboysblue.eu has up-to-date info.

Not done: The information was added briefly in January 2012 only to be removed in March. The user who removed the information has continued to edit this article, most recently last December, so it would be better to take up the change with that editor, Lionscitygl. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

BBB's albums

Pls, review the articles that I have created about BBB's albums. I wanna cover their all studio albums. Later, I want to write articles about Taylor Trevor and Tony Hendrik -- the initial info is in the Russian wiki. Should we write about John?

Best regards, Lamro (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo caption needed

The photo needs to be captioned as John McInerney. At present, readers unfamiliar with the band will not know who it is. --70.194.102.24 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Freddie Thomas

When is his birthday? In some sources May 20, 1946 and in some May 25, 1946. What is right and what is wrong? --108.185.187.168 (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bad Boys Blue. 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/20141030153259/http://www.bbbdisco.com/?page_id=6418 to http://www.bbbdisco.com/?page_id=6418

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) 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

fesival → festival

locked article2603:8000:D300:D0F:D5D:8295:289E:24F5 (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)