User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Re: Wesley Wilson

Re your message: Feel free to create the article about the artist. The article that I had deleted back in 2010 had no relation to the artist. It was about some non-notable high school student that shared the same name. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. I will try my best! Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

250 Articles!

There doesn't seem to be a barnstar for that, but you don't have one of these:

PS: I'll let you know when I hit 500. Should be in a few weeks time....... :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, thank you. Then, I'll have to send you one back ! Do me a favour. In your trusted book, look up The El Dorados, "At My Front Door" (1955). There is no reference in their article for what, I believe may have been a #1 R&B hit, but such a ref would also fit in my new article on Lefty Bates. I don't ask much !?! Cheers, - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref now added at The El Dorados. I'll try and have a look at that article some time. Anyway, I've been branching out into some murky territory re copyright allegations - a BLP as well. Hope he doesn't have connections over here.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: Singin' Sammy Ward - mean anything to you? I'd like to track down birth and death dates - any ideas? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. His Northern soul link does ring a bell, and then I thought momentarily that I had him. Until I realised I'd mixed him up with Billy Ward. Clearly, you've had a good scout around. I would have thought his Motown connection should have unearthed, at least, a date of birth somewhere. So no, sorry. Incidentally, the Essex Music name from your earlier post, seemed to appear on most record labels in the late 1960s / 1970s. I would have thought that there ought to be enough info around for another 'murky territory' article... hint, hint.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The Rumblers

Sorry, I added here:Rumblers. 109.153.220.50 (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Surprised there's no article yet. "The Rumblers - named* for Link Wray's Rumble - came from Norwalk, CA, and recorded with Downey Records out of Wenzel's Records up State 42 a few miles in Downey. Founded in 1959 (first gig 1961), they had a hit with Boss on the Downey (local)/Dot (national) labels, made a series of additional singles and an LP, and disbanded in 1965 when guitarist Johnny Kirkland was drafted. They also recorded as the Nylons and the Bel Cantos." - [1]. Thanks. 109.153.197.132 (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I've rescued the text from my archive and placed it here. I note their presence at Allmusic, - [2]. I am not aware of this outfit, but their notability seems to be secure, and would appear to warrant an article. If you have an interest in them, can I suggest that you compose a draft article in your user page, and I will willingly offer a guiding opinion thereon. Frankly, I am not sure on the present situation as to availability of options for IP address only users, but you are welcome to enquire further. Finally, not that this is an issue, but why specifically ask me ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen your many valuable contributions to popular music groups and artists. You are one of Wikipedia's most helpful editors. Alas, we ip address users are the lowest of the low. Thanks anyway. 109.153.194.52 (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments. There is a simple way to escape the 'lowest of the low' tag (your words, not mine) and that is to register yourself as a user. It's not difficult, and it has a few advantages. Your choice, of course. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Lol - as if one would ever want to "escape"! Yes a few. I tried it for about three years. 109.148.60.58 (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Hehe I'm an old blues and jazz soul so anything from that period I find really interesting. I feel at my best when I'm playing along on my guitar to some old blues or jazz record. One of my favourites was Sonny Boy Williamson I and Fats Waller but I'm pretty sure there there were hundreds of regionally notable musicians without articles on here. If you want you could create a list in your user space of missing notable biographies and I can help you out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

A provisional list is now available on my user page. However, just how notable they each are is something I have not yet investigated ! I may well add or delete names in the coming weeks, depending upon notability, and availability of reference material etc. A work in progress, you might say. Feel free to comment/assist/run a mile, as you feel fit. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Butting in as usual..... I'm impressed! At first glance, the only one I've heard of is Raymond Hill, who played on "Rocket 88" and was the dad of Tina Turner's first child - [3]. Some more here. I'm sure there's a good story there, but whether it's available from WP:RS I'm not sure! (At least you have b & d dates to start from, in his case.) Where do you find these people? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it's a start. The names come from various sources. The [Category:Lists of blues musicians] page, or at least where it leads, throws up many red links. Then there's affiliated names unearthed from the biographies of blues people that I have already done. Then there is my library of music rubbish and associated tat, including The Blues — From Robert Johnson to Robert Cray (Tony Russell, isbn= 1-85868-255-X). On top of all that, I have a bush in the garden under which....

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Bags I Joshua Altheimer.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a done deal - and duly taken off the list. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I suggested him - except he died young, and there's probably very little to say about him! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah - cherry picking the easy ones, I see !! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Are there any on the list that you want to pass over to me? I'm happy for you to do them, but I'm not sure if you're intending to tackle them or waiting for others to help out. I'm conscious that you suggested that I might have a go at Earl Thomas, which I haven't done yet - but I might be able to spend some time on one or two in the next week or so, assuming I don't get sucked too far into arguments elsewhere! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty much 'open house' really. If you fancy a go at one or two, then feel free. I was just starting on Johnny Mars, a very recent addition to the list, but apart from that... To be honest, as long as we are not wasting time by tackling the same subject, then it is merely a 'work in progress' listing for all (ha, ha) to contribute to, if they feel able. I am still concerned about notability. I suspect those without any source (Dixon, Shepard, Flett, Watkins) are complete no-hopers, and even those with only one are very marginal at best. If you look at the notability criteria, then no more than two or three of the quoted dozen would logically apply to any blues musician (apart from B.B. King, Muddy Waters etc.)

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

John "Juke" Logan

Please write the article first, then add the links to it.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What precisely states that I have to do that ? The article will be up in the next 24 hours or so, so what's the difference ? Also, there are those who may add the {Wikipedia:Orphan} tag if you follow the alternative route. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't here. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphan tags aren't a problem.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

But if it's up within a day or so that's not so bad.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Phew, what a relief. Well it is now up and running for all to dissect. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Fallen through the cracks of time .....

Ruby Winters. Virtually no information on her - no birth date or year, nothing on the soul websites (too pop I suppose), very strange chart history - how did the sudden popularity in the UK come about? Can you shed any light on it? - I can't! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that it triumphed on the back of Northern soul, which was quite a powerful force in 1977. I remember "I Will" clearly; for some reason, for it was not my kind of music, I really loved it. Rather in the manner of Viola Wills' "Gonna Get Along Without You Now", which I think did far better here than in the US, and I equally sang along with quite merrily. More generally, perhaps it was just one of those quirky things. Similar to "Float On", "Hey Girl Don't Bother Me", "Ring My Bell" and "Together We Are Beautiful", all from a roughly similar timespan, which often easily outperformed their Stateside chart equivalent. Purely my own thoughts and recollections, rather than a reliable source, of course.

You probably know that dear old Billy Fury previously covered "I Will" - a cracking good job too, for it is/was a good song. The time difference in success (US/UK) for Ruby Winters was perhaps mirrored by The Tams, or even The Detroit Spinners. Eeeeh, I could write a book !

One final thought. When I saw 'Fallen through the cracks of time' juxtaposed with your 'name', I thought, my giddy aunt, my old mucker has been transmogrified into a parallel universe !?!

What the heck

Derek
Your last User page edit summary ended "Still, nobody ever reads this stuff, so what the heck"
You might be surprised how many readers you have
[4] shows your user page was read 209 times between 1 and 22 October 2011
In fact your user & talk pages have 33 watchers
Click on "Number of watchers" on the history of the talk page (I had to ask how to do this on the WP:Help desk )

You might want/need to display this:-

Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.

- Arjayay (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Such as me....!  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, lordy. That means every time I type 'bollocks' when I make a mistake, a regular occurrence because I'm getting old, half of the cosmos knows about it ?! Well, what the heck indeed. Good to hear from you Arjayay, I trust you are well and are busy beavering away on the Wiki music articles. There are not many of us left. Anyhow, I meant what I said about dipping in to the 'Reds or Blues', if it interests you. I think I'll have a go at Aron Burton next. Very best wishes to all my readers.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Notable, or not notable...?

See here... Not just once, but twice! "In 1962 Russ has a huge seller with 'Send me the pillow that you dream on'." Err, no, it doesn't actually seem to have troubled the chart compilers in any books that I've got. "1966: Plays Wishee Washee in Aladdin at the Palace Theatre, Westcliff-on-Sea." Hmm. "Proper job: Parks and Gardens for Leyton Council" Says it all really. I think I'll give it a miss. Any thoughts? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

A definite miss in my book. I've never heard of him (and I think I have heard of most along the way), which is hardly definitive, but given his track record of no hits, and 'notability' based on Wishee Washee and Wisteria, I can not see a case at all. There are probably worse Wiki articles but, to me, this topic has no notable merit.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I did remember the name when I saw him redlinked at The 2i's Coffee Bar - but, you're right, not notable enough. Hope he doesn't find out we've rejected him - he obviously thinks he's a star! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bless him. I've come across a few in my life who have lightly brushed the very extremities of fame, and feel similar. Have you heard of Michael Coleman ? He is notable, but I can not quite make my mind up whether he is more R&B, soul and funk than blues (not that it matters too much). He is on my 'reds or blues list' as Michael Coleman (blues musician). He may interest you as much as me - his credits seem more blues than anything, but his collaborations with Malik Yusef are a long way away from base camp. Just ruminating.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Pop Star Birthday File

Hi. I noticed your mention of your 'Pop Star Birthday File' database on your user page. I don't suppose I could tempt you to take on the challenge of the thorny issue of Mariah Carey's birthdate? Some very definite shenanigans have gone on, and sources are split on whether she was born in 1969 or 1970. Carey seems happy to keep it a mystery and side steps questions on it. Consequently there is regular spates of edit warring on her page over it and you'll see it raised repeatedly on the talk page. Personally from what I've read I suspect it's 1969, but certainly can't prove it. Do you know of any sources that could resolve this once and for all? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, my 'file' states 1970, and I notice that Allmusic - [5], also cites that year. To be honest, I was not aware there was a problem with this, although I must state she is of no interest to me musically. I note on her article's talk page someone has quoted both Allmusic and her twin's birth certificate, which are obviously reliable sources, whilst I accept there are equally sources that state the opposite year. Usually, musicians lop more than one year off their ages for vanity purposes (it rather defeats the object to pretend to be twelve months younger), and more often than not when there is a discrepancy, the older date turns out to be correct. Andy Kim's talkpage is worth a read, but there the differential is some six years. Maybe a compromise citing both years (with supporting sources) would be the best solution, but I know from experience that editors are often adamant that one version must prevail. Have a look at Dave Clark (musician)'s editing history, which has been going on for years, ping-ponging around the issue of his year of birth (and he is almost seventy) !!

Why Carey is seemingly cagey as to whether she is 41 or 42, I do not know - surely she is too old for it to matter now. I'm more worried she's going to release another bloody turkey of a record.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It was more of a heated issue when she was turning the ancient age of 40, or was it only 39. You get some fans who'd insist she's immortal and perpetually 25 if they could get away with it. The problem with the claim to the birth certificate is that it's not actually there to be seen. We've equally had people previously producing what they claim to be images of her school year book, demonstrating the opposite. So the issue remains unresolved. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see - I did not investigate said birth certificate claim. Well, we are right about fans - they'll protest she's in her teens when she reaches 60 (or 59). Give me Shirley Bassey any day. Almost twice Carey's age and three times classier. The last time I heard Mariah sing, I thought she must have had her tits caught in a mangle. Seriously, sorry I could not be more helpful, but some issues just run and run. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Simon Climie DoB

Derek
Any definitive DoB for Simon Climie of Climie Fisher?
Someone has removed 7 April 1957 from Climie Fisher. As ever there are lots of mirrors, including the BBC, using this date
Lost Idols states 7 April 1960, but I don't trust this site as I know the date it gives for Rob Fisher's DoB is wrong (I knew Rob, he was in my intake at University (September 1975) and was not 15 at the time). Both dates on the Lost Idol's site appear 3 years too young.
There seems to be an attempt at revisionist history with a new WP:SPA only editing Simon Climie and Climie Fisher
Arjayay (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, old boy. This is an interesting one. I have 7 April 1960, Fulham, London, for Simon Climie, but my file has a question mark - so at the time of researching this one, which must be six years or more ago, I was not convinced. Given the 'pretty boy' promotion of Climie Fisher, lopping three years off both their ages would be about par for the course. You would guess the two of them were probably a similar age, so 1957 may well be nearer the truth. (Actually the British Hit Singles & Albums book gives 5 November 1959 for Fisher - poor fellow - so sources are obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt. The same source does not give a date for Climie ! The Dead Rock Stars Club, which I generally find is pretty accurate, also cites 1959.) I certainly would not trust the 'Lostidols.com' site, but which source (or another) do we lean towards ? You half wonder if the WP:SPA is Climie or somebody close to him, but with someone in his fifties, a revisionist stance on a DoB seems a bit of a pointless exercise. Maybe no date is better than a ping-pong exercise between two differing dates, which can arise - Mariah Carey and Dave Clark - to name but two.

Maybe even more research is called for !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pete Kuykendall

Hi, Derek! Thanks for your edits to Pete Kuykendall. (Isn't "I am weary, let me rest" a great song?) Please tell me about Categories, if you have a minute. Does the "Songwriters from Virginia" category automatically roll up into "Songwriters by state" which rolls up into "American songwriters"? That would make sense. But, doesn't that mean that the 600 pages of articles directly entered as "American songwriters" have to be re-categorized? As you can tell, I don't know much about Categories! --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kenatipo, and thank you for your kind comments. I'll be straight with you, I've never heard of Kuykendall, nor the song you mention. My work was purely re-categorisation and a minor clean-up. You are correct in your assumption about the way these categories work. I recently undertook re-categorisation of a couple of hundred similarly listed articles, to insert categories relevant to the person's birth/home/origin state, rather than leaving the blanket of "American songwriters". The 600 or so that remain under the less specific category, are those were such precision may not be possible, based on information currently in those articles. For example, some are people born outside of the United States, many do not specify a 'home state' at all, or some list several (possibly where the individual has relocated frequently, and the present article's wording does not clearly indicate a specific state of origin). In an ideal world, most of the 600 should be in a more exact, individual state, categorisation. If you care to browse through a selection of "American songwriters", you may well more easily understand my earlier comments.

Some editors seem to think that adding categories adds value, but more specific categorisation is really the aim, to help readers navigate more easily. Purely as an example, the [Category:American singers], is OK, but it would be better to refine that to, [Category:African American female singer-songwriters] (or whatever). I hope this helps. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Derek. A more specific category is preferable where available; good explanation.

"I am weary ..." is on the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack, performed by The Cox Family. As a fan of popular music, you can't not know it! Beware -- it is plumb pitiful; don't listen to it if you're already depressed! --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just shot myself - but only in the foot. Best wishes - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hope it doesn't hurt too much. Best wishes to you, too. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm hopping mad - I hope it'll heel OK ?! LOL - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Persondata

Per WP:Persondata - "The person's most commonly known name should be in the |NAME= field" - shouldn't we put in "Brown, Ruth" rather than "Weston, Ruth Alston"? You may know more about practice on that than me, but it seems odd not to use the name by which she was most widely known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The more I deal with this box, the more confused I become. One editor, can't remember who, berated me some time ago for putting the best known name in the |NAME section; stating that this should be their given name, not their 'stage name'. When I read the {WP:Persondata} guidelines ('Alternative names') it appears ambigious to me. A criticism I might apply to a lot of the editing guidelines. My experience is that they start in normal straightforward speak, then lapse into contradictory jargon, which seems more aimed at American publishers and the like, rather than normal souls. Perhaps it's just me - I'm getting old.

I thought I was correct in my edit, but who knows, I've erred a-plenty before !! Indeed "I could be wrong I could be right" - another of The Bad Shepherds numbers as it turns out.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd look at a couple of examples - Cliff Richard and Ringo Starr - and they have diametrically opposite approaches! Birth name for one, stage name for the other. Looking at Wikipedia talk:Persondata, there seems to have once been a consensus that it should lead on the name used "in the opening sentence" - which is not much help as opening sentences vary a lot. Maybe we should ask someone, somewhere - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies, perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Persondata. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad it is not just me then. Good move by you; let's see what transpires. I suspect that there might not be a common approach to this. Mind you, we are talking about getting a consensus on Wikipedia - that's always good for a laugh.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had two replies! I agree with them that it's much more logical and consistent to use the name in the article title as the "common name". I'll change Ruth Brown back - and leave the rest to you!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bolds

Heya Derek!

Where in the style guidelines does it recommend bolding the listing of names of band members in band articles? It seems jarring to me, but it seems you do that at least occasionally. (Looking at The Newbeats right now.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, JP. I will hazard a guess and say you have read the guidelines closely, and can not find it anywhere. To be honest, some time ago I simply followed the lead of several other editors, who enboldened band member names when in a separate 'band members' section. Rather in the manner of putting people's names, real or otherwise, in bold type in an article's lede. Whether it is technically correct or not, I can not truly say. If it jars you, maybe you are not alone, and it needs removing. If so, there is no complaint from me. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep hunting around some to see where it started. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Love Me Do"

I don't know if you monitor Talk:The Beatles, but someone there is questioning my "claim" that "Love Me Do" was on the charts for 18 weeks from late 1962, and reached no. 17. Can you confirm (or deny) it from your sources? My source (Graham Betts, Collins Complete UK Hit Singles) is a bit unclear as to which charts it uses as its source. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not follow the Beatles, reckoning that plenty of other editors would do so (living proof). Plus the fact they were crap. Anyhow, according to British Hit Singles & Albums (19th edition), "Love Me Do" first charted in the week ending 11 October 1962, spent a total of 26 weeks therein (bearing in mind that there were two re-entries in this period) and peaked at number 4 (Parlophone R4949). However, according to the 14th edition of the same tome, it peaked at number 17 and spent 18 weeks therein (which, one would assume, was the first of those chart runs). I do not have the time right now to investigate the subsequent chart runs any further, but I hope this answers your question. I am going away for a couple of days later today, so you will appreciate the lack of activity from this mad old fool over that short period. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Have a good break.... but aaargh!! According to Betts, it was the 1982 reissue that reached no.4, on the charts for 7 weeks - as it was the same (replica) label number, your source must have aggregated the two chart runs (1962/3 and 1982). Thanks anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've found that info too. At Everyhit.com which is not a bad source, even though it only covers the Top 40 over the years. Regards.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Another source (as I mentioned earlier, but originally did not turn the page in the book) that differentiates the two separate chart entries is - Roberts, David (2001). British Hit Singles (14th ed.). London: Guinness World Records Limited. pp. 103–4. ISBN 0-85156-156-X. Second chart run commenced on w/e 16 October 1982 for seven weeks, peak of number 4. I realise you have probably long since moved on from this one, but I would not leave my head whilst I was away in Eboracum for a couple of days. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Everyone's happy over there now, I think. Maybe I should suggest changing "rock band" to "pop group" - that should keep everyone there busy for a few weeks. My view is that, if it hadn't been for the man behind "Nellie the Elephant", they wouldn't have ever amounted to much! Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Trump, trump, trump" - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Delmark Records

Hi Derek. Saw your note on Delmark Records and added three secondary sources. There seem to be quite a few more to be found, too. The truth is out there. Yworo (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Yworo. Splendid. I knew the label must be notable, and your efforts prove the point. When I have the time I'll try to add further references. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pah!

Re blues musicians - "...I have not really encountered anyone seriously and regularly contributing towards their articles..." - [6]. Huh - I'll get me coat then.... There are one or two other editors around I think, but I suppose you're right. The number of new editors contributing seems to have plummeted since we got here - is it something we said, or have we just scared them away with our efficiency?! Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't you take the hump. I did not mean to undervalue your contributions, which are rather a given in these parts, more a general comment about the lack of regular contributors from the States. I mean, two blue eyed, (mine are brown, actually) white, British boys, flying an almost lone flag for black American music. It's ridiculous. I do not know the answer. The latest editor, to whom my comments were made, may up the ante, but I've heard it all before. Ohhh, you're right, we are too good.... remember that nice barm cake thingy you got recently ?!?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's always been the case though - it was Brits like Mike Leadbitter and Paul Oliver who documented a lot of blues musicians in the first place, and when people like Memphis Slim and Champion Jack Dupree came over in the 50s and 60s they stayed over here because they were completely forgotten and ignored back home. I think it's something to do with appreciating something that, to our ears, is quite exotic - a bit like Americans going overboard for Herman's Hermits! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Little Arthur Duncan

A note was dropped on my talk page you should probably review concerning the "Little" title. ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Beard

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chris Beard, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.elance.com/j/singer-songwriter-guitarist-biography/23404894/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has been assessed and passed as No copyright concern - see [7] for verification. Only took a fortnight to clear my name ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Larry Hamilton

The source for Mr Hamilton's passing was a contact on the southern soul list. I judge the source to be impeccable so wait a few days for the official announcement. I think I should have waited dorkinglad (talk)

OK. I would have thought it would have been made public by now ?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

you have ruined my artists facebook fanpage... please remove the connection to my page!!!

this person keeps popping up on MY Facebook artist page. I am not Richard Anthony Hewson. I am in no way affiliated with the RAH band. i am an artist who goes by R.A.H. it stand for something else. PLEASE GET RID OF THIS PERSONS WIKIPEDIA ON MY FACEBOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!! FACEBOOK.COM/RAHDYNASTYFCG

98.154.135.246 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Derek. I've removed one of this editor's rants from this page, and replied over at his own talk page. Nothing to do with you, I think. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

On your return.....

.....oops!!!...... Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not like the Dead Rock Stars page to get things wrong - we are all human ! Hope you are well.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

All fairly quiet here - don't think you missed much. Yes, I was surprised that Dead Rock Stars got it wrong, but obviously they were as confused as everyone else. Have a good trip? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, smashing thanks. I've got a tan, jet lag and several mozzy bites, so I know I've been further south than Caldicot. From plus 30 to minus 6 °C in around eight hours - what a life, eh !?! Also, thanks for keeping an eye out on my behalf. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but you can't beat Caldicot, can you? - heaven on earth, surely. Actually, considering it has both a castle and a Waitrose, it's a remarkably depressing place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, despite your half endorsement, never a place on my wish list of places to visit. I went here - Punta Cana - that's me walking to the aircraft in the picture bottom right. Good job it was not raining; when it does it fairly p***es it down !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd never thought of you before as being a blonde in a very short denim skirt.... funny how modern communications give a false impression of the people you "talk" to ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's me - quite a looker eh ?! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reflinks

Hi Derek, thanks for expanding a bare URL citation at Eyes on Me. However, Reflinks failed to decode the foreign script correctly. I don't know how unusual that would be, but it might be worth checking the results before leaving a page after filling in non-Latin scripts. In this case your edit was helpful anyway as it prompted me at long last to find a way to copy the Japanese text from that pdf, which does seem to have a difficult encoding. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I do try to manually check every time I use the Webreflinks thingy, but my 'expertise' (ha ha) is in popular music, not foreign languages !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

:-) – Fayenatic (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Elton John

I saw that you update the Reg Strikes Back page with opinionated commentary that was not an accurate reflection of Elton's music career, so it had to be removed. One can argue that Elton was not in any dry spell for five years since the release of Reg Strikes Back. In fact, Sacrifice and Healing Hands from SWTP was released as a double A side single in the UK in 1990 and went straight to #1 for some weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.76.185.47 (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The commentary came from a respected music journalist, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, and from a reliable third party source - Allmusic. Therefore it's inclusion is perfectly acceptable. Whether you agree, or disagree with it, is frankly irrelevant. You are also guilty of removing sourced and referenced text, which is regarded on Wikipedia as vandalism. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability before accusing any other experienced editor of improper editing. Please note - "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation".

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Your music journalist stated an opinion, it was not fact given that Elton John had a hit single over this so called five year period slump. That is why it was removed. If you decide put it back, I will argue again for it's dismissal because you did improper editing to an article that didn't justify any facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.76.185.47 (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, he is not my music journalist. He is independent of me and notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Secondly, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Specifically, "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth." "Verifiability" is used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them". Also, not for the first time, your comments are seemingly questioning my experience and integrity. I may be more receptive if you afforded me the courtesy of signing your messages - (4 x ~) is all that is required. Frankly I do have not any burning desire to re-insert the referenced sentence that seems to offend you. However, you need to be aware that I will fully defend my application of Wikipedia's editing guidelines for the rationale to do so.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana red

Indeed I acted to fast someone started a rumour that he died... very sad

OK. No real damage done. But the lesson is that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is important - particularly when dealing with someone's existence, or otherwise. Fake death reports occur almost daily. Also, please sign your comments with (4 x ~). Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Stack Is the New Black

Per you edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stack_Is_the_New_Black&diff=481169467&oldid=455504616

Please can you point me to where this source is blacklisted? memphisto 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Only as far as Toolserver.org, which I have been using to repair bare URLs. I assume it is correct ?!

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it would be best in future to ignore toolserver's opinion of The Australian. memphisto 16:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - I trust you will appreciate that I've simply acted in good faith. Perhaps better still to get toolserver's operating practice to change, rather than individual editors. Mind you, I am no expert on the workings/rationale of any of these bots !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a similar problem and have reported them at User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Blacklisted newspapers. – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what opportunity Reflinks gives you for user intervention, but if you can, please would you review what it is deleting, and reinstate what sounded OK? I appreciate that the responsibility for such blacklists should rest mainly with the people who maintain the tools rather than the users, and that you are doing more good with it than harm, but all these automated tools have a downside and need to be watched. – Fayenatic L (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I do try to intervene manually when using Reflinks - and I have been known to desist deleting willy nilly. The problem can be recognising what appears legitimate - is a local/regional publication/newspaper necessarily desirable, when you have no knowledge of it ? I am trying to be discerning, but as you point out, the root of the potential problem is not of my making. As I have said before here - sometimes you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. Overall, I am happy I am doing the right thing more than, say, 95% of the time. It's more than can be said for many who are tolerated in these parts (not you - I hasten to add). Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - don't lose heart!

User:Dispenser says he has clarified the warning message given by Reflinks, as he thinks the previous wording may have led to you misundersanding it. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement - it makes a change from the brickbats that seem to have winged their way here in recent months. Nothing much to misunderstand about a red lit message stating 'Blacklisted site' - anyhow, I'll plough on regardless. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the repair of the sources in an article Corbin Bleu discography. But can you repair sources in an article Corbin Bleu. and remove the template at the top of the sources. Please do this for me. good luck my friend. --Lilnone (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that article, is necessary to delete these unreliable sources such as amazon.com, youtube and many other inappropriate sites used as sources. As is evident here. --Lilnone (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read in the discussion page here. I'm sorry, I am not one of these sock puppets users. Thank you. --Lilnone (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Chace. Indefinitely blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I smelt a rat. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of wikilinks within references

I noticed in a recent Reflinks-assisted edit here, that you removed several wikilinks within references, e.g., "publisher=BBC News" becomes "publisher=BBC News". Can you tell me if this is was your choice or default Reflinks behavior? I was not able to readily find justification for making such a change. Thanks. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, this is instigated by Reflinks itself. To be fair I have undertaken thousands of such bot driven edits, so my memory of individual acts is somewhat fleeting. I can not think why I would instigate such alterations though. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I've reported it as a bug here. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

So my old friend, 'overlinking', was the real culprit. Thank goodness it was not my fault; I grow somewhat weary of the continual questioning of my actions.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Hi i m Mukta and i am thnkin of cr8in a wiki project page 4 Justin Bieber if you wish 2 hlp me 2 participate in this project msg me back. thnxxxxx मूक्ता (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Frankie Miller 'High Life' Info

Hi Derek-

The Frankie Miller album, 'High Life', was in fact recorded in Atlanta, GA . . .

Allen Toussiant's studio, SeaSaint, was under construction at the time, so he and Frankie chose Atlanta's Web IV Studios and used Atlanta musicians to record the Lp.

I've included the Wiki Link to verify my addition of the info on Frankie's page. [[8]]

I'm a big fan of Frankie and this album.

Thanks,

OC — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCGriffin (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. However, please note Wikipedia:Verifiability which states, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable". The cited source (which I have in front of me) used in the article reads "the footloose singer-songwriter upped sticks for New Orleans were he hooked up with ....Allen Toussaint for the Highlife (1974) album". In other words, you need to provide a reliable source for the recording location in Atlanta. Another Wikipedia article, which in any case does not provides a reference to back up the statement, is not considered a reliable source. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Atlanta studios and musicians are noted on the Wikipedia article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Life_%28Frankie_Miller_album%29>

So, is a Wikipedia article 'not a verifiable source'? I own the album, and it's clearly noted in the liner notes. I'm new to Wikipedia, and trying to 'get up to speed' with contributing. Thanks, OC — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCGriffin (talk • contribs) 20:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Helpful talk page stalker here.... Allmusic refers to it being recorded in Atlanta, so can be used as a reliable source (even though we know it's sometimes not!)

@OC: basically, no, an unsourced Wikipedia article should not be used as a source for another article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Guy- Thank You for the clarification . . . OCGriffin (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)OC

In Derek's absence (down the pub, probably), I've made the change. Thanks for noticing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

'Down the pub' - what a scurrilous statement - I was actually siphoning off my poteen ! All is well. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am requeting your help in editing the DJ MELL STARR Sandbox page

Hello Derek,

I created a page and wrote an article for DJ Mell Starr a contestant on season 2 Master of the Mix. I am new to Wikipedia and stumbling around trying to figure all this stuff out. Wikipedia is very confusing to me. I submitted an article and it was deleted for COI. I revised it and need help with the new revision. Please be kind enough to review and provide feed back on my revised article. I would be so grateful for your help. Thk you.

DJ MELL STARR 16:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Hello. I have improved the referencing on the article, and brought the text, formatting and styling more in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I think you have had enough advice from elsewhere regarding Wikipedia's Five pillars, but it is important to stress that it is an encyclopedia and should not be treated in a similar manner to Facebook, MySpace, Twitter etc. Also please sign your comments, as others have urged on your talk page. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Derek, I think I have a technical problem with my signature. Everyday I am learning something new. I am very grateful for all of your help! --DJ MELL STARR 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Thank You for your response

-I guess I really suck at Wikipedia. :-) I am trying to hard to follow the rules and regulations of the site but yet I keep messing up. I promise you ...after every comment I make I add the these > ~ ~ ~ ~. I thought I was doing it correct, but it seems I am still doing it wrong. After this comment to you I am going to click the signiture and time stamp button at the top of the page and please let me know in your next comment if I have done the correct thing.

-As for the information that I have constructed for DJ Mell Starr's Wikipedia....I went to various other pages and read some of their info. I thought I was along the same lines as the other pages. I tried to write factual info and used references... not blog type info. In your opinion, do you think what I have now meets Wikipedia's standards? If you don't think so....can you kindly pin point what statements sound blogish similar to FB, MySpace & Twitter so that I can delete them?

--DJ MELL STARR 20:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

I do not know why your attempts at creating a signature is not working. You may need to contact an administator for assistance. I also do not know what 'other pages' you may have looked at for inspiration, but a featured article such as Sasha (DJ) may be worth perusing. At least the DJ Mell Starr article is moving in the right direction now. Try not to get too disheartened - Wikipedia is a steep learning curve, and you did rather jump in at the deep end by creating a new article without any experience.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

-:SO VERY TRUE. I will take a look at Sasha (DJ), that will help alot. Just an FYI..I am not DJ Mell Starr. Everyone seems to think I am because of my written content I guess. DJ MELL STARR 13:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) --DJ MELL STARR 13:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Regarding your user name and your comments above - I suggest you take a quick look at Wikipedia:Username policy.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying to resolve the signature issue

Please let me correct myself. I am Mr Starr's wife. I am just typing & trying to resolve the signature issue & he is right here with me. I have my own personal page. Trust me. I am aware of COI policies. Thank you. DJ Mell Starr 14:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

I don't think my signature works/I need citation

-I noticed that using the tildes nor the signature and time stamp button works. I don't know what to do.DJ MELL STARR 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

-I have a picture of Lord Yoda X putting & Mell Starr and it show Yoda giving Mell Starr the Zulu Nation neck piece. May I use that picture as citation?DJ MELL STARR 21:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Article notability - possible speedy delete?

Can you cast your eyes over Exide (band) to see if it meets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7 . As far as I can see there is no evidence of major label signing, charting single or album, major tour, major concert or any other measure of notability usually applied to bands on wikipedia. Seems to be a fluffed up article for a minor local band with no obvious track record. Anyway, see what you think. If not a speedy delete it surely needs a close examination before it grows further. There also seem to be aspects of 'involved' and 'conflict of interest' issues.

It was tagged for speedy delete a while back but the main contributor dokkenrocker deleted the tag within minutes. I see also that the same small cadre of editors have created individual pages for the band members also. Seems like a major publicity push or vanity features rather than true encyclopedic efforts.21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

This has taken a bit of wading through, given the associated items covering band members - all of which are clearly non-notable - record release(s), record label, etc. Basically I would agree, in that I can not see anything to suggest this is much more than a local band straining for publicity. Also, there is considerable work, and some Wiki knowledge, that has gone into creating these articles. This makes me suspicious of said editor, whose own user page was created a matter of weeks ago. He/she is too 'Wiki aware' for a complete newbie (I appreciate all this is not just one person's work). The bottom line is that, in my view, none of the articles, with the possible exception of the label, currently exhibit notability. I hope this helps. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Burks

If there is no other notable Michael Burks, there is no need for a parenthetical to disambiguate; so it would just be Michael Burks. Good luck! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks for that, but that is not the issue. There has been a previous deleted page in that name, so I am not certain how to proceed. I have asked the deleting editor to feedback.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New article is now available at Michael Burks. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15