User talk:Derek R Bullamore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Obscured jaguar.jpg Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers.


WELCOME!! Hello, Derek R Bullamore! I want to personally welcome you on behalf of the Wikipedia community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already, you can put yourself in the new user log and the list of users so you can be properly introduced to everyone. Don't forget to be bold, and don't be afraid of hungry Wikipedians...there's a rule about not biting newcomers. Some other good links are the tutorial, how to edit a page, or if you're really stuck, see the help pages. Wikipedia is held up by Five Pillars...I recommend reading about them if you haven't already. Finally, it would be really helpful if you would sign your name on talk pages, so people can get back to you quickly. It's easy to do this by clicking the button (next to the one with the "W" crossed out) one from the end on the left. If that's confusing, or if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a at my talk page (by clicking the plus sign (+) next to the tab at the top that says "edit this page")...and again, welcome!--ViolinGirl 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bellevue, Mississippi[edit]

I know you do a lot of Mississippi edits. I'm not sure what to do with Bellevue, Mississippi. Last year I nominated it for deletion because the place doesn't exist. It's a "proposed" city. AfD was not successful. I've honestly tried to find Bellevue and the closest I could come was this church. Look at the pushback I received from the locals after I deleted the POV from neighboring Oak Grove, Mississippi (which will be part of the proposed "Bellevue"). Would you have a moment to look at the Bellevue article? I'd appreciate your opinion. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Normally I would oblige. But I am away for five days at Old Trafford commencing later today, so I do not have the time at present. Secondly, my edits on Mississippi are generally spin-offs of my work on blues musicians. Also, for an Englishman, I am not sure where is where in the Deep South or, sometimes, even in the Frozen North ! Best regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) here. As a Brit, the idea that a place "doesn't exist" unless it is "incorporated" seems a very bizarre and totally American concept. There's not much I can say beyond the comments at the AFD page - except that we take an internationalist view, which is that if a place is mentioned in reliable sources, it exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Bellevue is only mentioned as a proposed place. It appears on no maps, and isn't listed as a "place" on any official record. Maybe the article just needs better wording about what it is. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

New York University[edit]

bare URLS at New York University. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems some more bare URLs are added to NYU. Thank you so much!-- (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Several same sources fully cited multiple times at NYU, maybe could use some of your ref-inmprovement tricks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I might do, however with 220 references to peruse, some guidance as to which precisely are duplicated would be very helpful. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Rail trail[edit]

Hi there; it looks like your edit to Rail trail touched a bunch of references beyond the two you fixed, including stripping information in a few cases. Not sure if this is a case of Reflinks malfunctioning or some other issue. Best, Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK now ? - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Margie Evans[edit]

Dear Derek Thank you for cleaning up after me;-) I'm very new to this, and any help is appreciated. How do I ad a picture to Margie Evans' profile? Thank you so much Philipp FankhauserPhilippFankhauser (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Philipp. Sorry for the delay in replying.
You might care to take a look at the editing guidelines available here (just click on the blue coloured link) where, amongst other aspects, it notes that album titles should be Denoted This Way, whilst song titles are "Correctly Displayed Like This". Guidance relating to the uploading of images is given here. Despite my lengthy tenure at Wikipedia, I have not seriously attempted to upload images, which I understand is fraught with problems if the guidance notes are not followed fully and correctly. Do I assume you are really this individual - if so, you need to be aware of WP:COI.
I certainly do not wish to put you off contributing to Wikipedia. However, you might benefit from reading Wikipedia:Five pillars before progressing much further. If I can offer any more assitance, then you know where I am. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sega 3D Classics Collection[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing—Sega 3D Classics Collection—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jotamide (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Electric bicycle laws[edit]

Electric bicycle laws still has Linkrot in the references, but also URLs in the article which are not references, at least not with <ref></ref>. Can I go and attempt to make those URLs into references? What cam be done about the Linkrot remaining?Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it should look a bit better now - but feel free to tinker further.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes it is better to go on to something else.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Birth and death dates[edit]

I've recently treated myself to a hard copy of Eagle and LeBlanc's Blues: A Regional Experience ("BARE"), which is generally regarded, I think, as the most authoritative source of info on blues and associated performers' biographical details, particularly birth and death dates, and also maiden names, birth places, etc.. It's not 100.00% accurate, I think... but maybe 99.95% accurate, and definitely a WP:RS. I'll add details when I can to relevant articles, probably on a fairly random basis, but if there are any outstanding questions on which you're burning to get a firm answer, let me know! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes I have used the online version of this tome for referencing purposes on many blues articles in recent times (by which I probably mean the last three or five years). Obviously the hard copy is more easily accessed. I can not think of any case which springs to mind at present, there again what day is it ?!
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Having had a bit of a look around, you could try to validate, or otherwise, these cases : Terry Garland, Bull City Red, Lil' Ed Williams, Eddie Mapp, Mattie Delaney, Maggie Jones (blues musician), Ramblin' Thomas, Gabriel Brown, Ralph Willis (blues musician), Martha Copeland (you'll be lucky), Little Freddie King, Virginia Liston, Smoky Babe, Nick Moss, and The Mighty Hannibal. I have some more in the pipeline, but I'll leave it to these for the present. Cheers,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for those suggestions. I'm using the tome at the moment to edit articles that I've started, and when I've done that, I'll move on to these. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I've now checked those ones as best I can. The book seems very reliable on the whole - but it certainly has its eccentricities, and isn't always good at revealing its own sources! Still, worth having I feel. It's bringing up a few anomalies - such as at Lil Green, which I still haven't got to the bottom of..... Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
And a very good job you are doing too ! Just a thought - is it worth seeing if you can connect either author ? They might appreciate a third eye on the situation, giving it is only three years since they published. (They could be planning an updated edition of same). Probably tomorrow, I will see if I can rustle up another list for you to explore at leisure - well, as you have the book to hand, it seems such a shame to waste it ! Many thanks,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
LeBlanc died last year (I thought about writing an article, but was unsure about his notability). I've been in contact with Bob Eagle via a Facebook forum, but he hasn't been over-helpful. It's a strange book - it presents itself as authoritative, and I think usually is (there are decades of research in it), but in some cases where you would expect some clarification of obvious discrepancies with other sources, there is no explanation at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Probably because the author(s) could not think of anything that sounded plausible, or authoritative enough. Anyhoo, here goes .....

Ken Saydak, Jamo Thomas (not really blues at all, but you never know), Joe Willie Wilkins (confusion abounds), Charlie Spand, Walter Roland, Dan Sane, Laura Smith (blues singer), Duke Henderson, Lottie Kimbrough, Bessie Tucker, Guitar Slim, Jr., Little Buddy Doyle, Hazel Meyers, Kitty Brown, Madlyn Davis, Jabo Williams, Freddie Roulette, Hattie Hart, Mary Johnson (singer), William Ezell, Elder Roma Wilson (is she really still alive?), Oscar "Buddy" Woods, Freddie Spruell, Ora Alexander, Johnny "Yard Dog" Jones (death dates in the article do not accord), Little Jimmy King, Ironing Board Sam, Eddie Drennon (not blues at all, but a long shot), John Németh, Mason Ruffner, Ellis Hooks, Sandra Hall, Tom Principato, Seth Walker, Damon Fowler, Kelley Hunt (we've been here before), Reneé Austin (as per the one before), Helen Gross, Bertha Idaho, Edmonia Henderson, Katherine Henderson, Ed Bell (musician) (good for a laugh guessing which date is correct), Big Joe Maher, Sidney Maiden, Matt Hill (musician) (citation needed indeed), Little Willy Foster (no doubt about the Little Willy, more the precise birth dates), Terry "Harmonica" Bean, Lisa Mann (another from before), Vaneese Thomas (probably not in the book), Jeremiah Johnson (blues musician), E.C. Scott, Julian Fauth, Tommy Z, Duffy Bishop, Chris James and Patrick Rynn (either, more than likely neither), Barry Levenson, Terry Hanck, Diana Braithwaite, Dennis Gruenling, (these most recent ones must be familiar to you), and, of course, Fanlight Fanny.

There you have it - way too many to contemplate. It only proves that the 'land of the free' has no idea how many are actually vaguely free at all, 'cos they have completely lost track of the majority of them before they even started out - particulary if they happened to be a certain colour. Best of luck. There is clearly no timescale attached to your efforts here. Frankly, if you can add detail to more than a dozen of those listed previously, it will be a real bonus. Sleep well... or wake up happy, dependent upon whichever hour you finally read this everlasting list.... Regards, as always,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That should keep me occupied - thanks! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Dan Sane is a tricky one - they have completely different dates for both birth and death! Insane. His grandson was born in 1932, which (umm.... probably) rules out 1904 as his birth year, at least. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
"There are more questions than answers, And the more I find out the less I know" - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
As you can tell, many of those are not mentioned at all in the book - especially the more recent ones. But... there you go. More suggestions welcome - I do need to get back to Charlie(ey) though, and at some point I'll start working on the hundreds (thousands??) of performers in the book who probably don't have articles at all! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for all your efforts. The names I supplied were all from articles that I created and/or are on my 'watch list'. Therefore I have nothing else to proffer for the time being at least. My red or blue list is now short of numbers (some of those included probably do not pass 'notability' criteria), so if you want to offload a name or two to me, then feel free. Thanks again,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Did I ask about William Ezell ? An article I created, you briefly edited, and another conundrum about birth date/place, that LeBlanc and Eagle may have dabbled with. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Now checked and confirmed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Or even Arizona Dranes... possibly as in, "It's no use boss, we got to get those Arizona Dranes sorted out". Bet you wish you never started all this ! - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing more to add I'm afraid - BARE appears to miss her completely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Sylvia Kristel[edit]

Hi, I am wondering what your reason was to remove maintenance tag and the rotten links which I marked 'dead link'? ronazTalk! 09:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Rotten links which are listed purely under 'external links' seem to have no value. I do not remove them if they are a reference/citation, but spend an inordinate amount of time to ensure that dead links do not remain in articles, which violates WP:LR. It might be possible to resurrect those links as useful entities, as per WP:DEADREF.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! Seems I have some reading up to do :) I also will have a look around if some of the links can be resurrected.ronazTalk! 07:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

August 2016 Linkrot[edit]

What can be done about the three August 2016 Linkrot articles? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not too sure. I keep glancing the other way when these cases arise, hoping that they might disappear by magic !?! Two of these originate in the {Infobox_gene} sections, which I am not familiar with. The Anti-oppressive practice article suffers from insufficient information in the references. Do you remember a previous case (I can not recall the article's name) where we asked the article's originator for some assistance ? Alternatively, you could quiz those editors who have made the greatest significant edit to the relevant articles, to see if they may assist. Another option is posting a question at the Village pump - somewhere I have not ventured.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Good ideas, Derek. Village pump is a possibility I have used before. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I added expert needed in Sociology and other tags to Anti-oppressive practice. I added expert in Molecular and Cell Biology needed for Cyclic nucleotide-gated channel alpha 1 and Zinc finger protein 343.
OK - well done. We will see what transpires in due course. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Your script-assisted edits[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up articles. However, in this edit, you used a script that removed information from several citations. Can you please re-add that information? Please check the results of your script before you move on to another article. I haven't looked through your other edits, but it seems possible that this script is doing the same thing in other articles. Before you use it on more articles, please go through your earlier edits and verify that they aren't removing information from citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You may have overlooked my subsequent edit, which edited back in anything of lasting significance. Dead links are dead after all, and as long as the url is not lost, there seems little point in retaining other information which is 'dead'. Both {Reflinks} and {Refill} follow this model - your beef, for what it is, may be better pursued in trying to improve those bots, which are approved by Wikipedia for editing purposes. With respect, I do not intend to revisit my approximately 100,000 edits of a similar, bare url eliminating, vein.
Derek R Bullamore (talk)
No, you did not re-add the information that your script removed. Compare the before and after: [1]. See how some of the citations are now missing critical information, such as magazine, page number, issue number, and such? Since you seem unwilling to clean up after yourself, I'm going to revert your edit. I would advise that you take more care in the future and watch what your edits do, because you could end up topic banned from making script-assisted edits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, there was another instance of the same thing yesterday on The Troubles. This edit stripped the information from three refs, "UK military operations in Northern Ireland 1969-2006 aka Operation Banner" (a cite template), "Commons Debate, 8 June 1993", and "Northern Ireland becoming a more normalised society". This edit then fixed one and marked the others as "dead links". One of the two "dead links" [2] was alive and well this morning. The other I was able to find on the Wayback machine. So you see, dead links are not always dead, and certainly not always dead and gone. I can't see any justification for saying that there's "little point in retaining other information" when you fail to access a link. Quite apart from the not-dead and the Wayback scenarios, the title itself may help to find the content in a case where the url has changed slightly, or where the same story was available on different sites, some of which are still live. Where a url is completely inaccessible, there's all the more reason to keep the other information, since that – not the url – is what is required by WP:V.
It took me a lot of time to fix those mistakes this morning, far longer than it took you to make them. It took me longer even to type this post to you. All I'm asking is that, in future, you look at your changes before saving, and restore any information that the script has removed. Scolaire (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, nobody is saying that you can't use the script, DRB. The problem is you need to spend more time verifying that the script has not removed necessary content from citations. You are responsible for any edits done by a script, as you're supposed to be checking to make sure that the script improves the article. This takes time, but it's necessary. Quality is much more important than quantity, and there are no prizes for getting the most edits on Wikipedia. If the script allows you to preview, preview your edit before saving. If it doesn't allow you to preview, manually check the diff and see if anything was removed. If it was, add it back yourself. It's unfair to make other editors do this for you. If the script is causing problems, it's your responsibility to clean up after them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"Just to clarify", I assume it is your joint responsibility to harangue another editor. I have been on Wikipedia for almost eleven years, undertaken 170,000 plus edits, and the two of you are giving me editing advice ! Part of the problem here seems to be the edits that are thrown up by both {reflinks} and {refill}. If the two bots, recommended for usage by Wikipedia itself, are so inadequate, why not spend some time trying to make these better, rather than picking holes in someone using them. Secondly, I can assure you both that I spend an inordinate amount of time trying to ensure that all of my edits are as good as I can make them. If something tells me a link is dead, then I am supposed to check this out the next day ? "It's unfair" that other editors leave articles with bare urls - if you spent the amount of time, energy and diligence I do trying to correct these, then you might have a better idea of what you are talking about. "This takes time, but it's necessary".
You both have sufficient time to waste it telling an experienced editor what to do. It is a wonder I do not tell you both what to do.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I am not giving you editing advice. I am telling you that what you are doing is harmful to the project, and asking you to stop. Persisting in deleting information from references, once you have had it pointed out to you that that is what you are doing, is vandalism. Scolaire (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I have asked Dispenser for input. I find it hard to believe that Reflinks was intended for this. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

can't link to YouTube?[edit]

Hi, DRB.

I just did an External Link to a YouTube video of Odetta and Johnny Cash singing the Sir Lancelot version of "Shame & Scandal" and a few minutes later something called LinkBot came along and reverted me. Is linking to YouTube not allowed? Thanks. (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are asking me about another 'editors' actions. However, I would point you in the direction of WP:YT, which explains the potential copyright violation problems surrounding adding links to YouTube. I hope this helps you in any future editing of a similar nature. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Derek. I don't consider bots to be editors either. Thank you also for pointing me to WP:YT (I'm afraid to read it!) (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there any Linkrot?[edit]

I am being reverted on Sahrawi Association of Victims of Grave Human Rights Violations Committed by the Moroccan State by a user who claims there are still two Linkrots. I can't find them. Please check it out for me. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Merely dead links not marked as such, as far as I can see. It should be OK now. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Key edits[edit]

Thanks for your edits on the Michelle Key article, changing the references to the Cite Web format. As you may have noticed that article is suggested for deletion, which i think is wrong. I'd be happy to have you support my argument to "Keep" the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Key, if you see fit. I've changed a couple of the references to The Racquetball Blog website to the official draws on the IRF website, which may appease those calling for the article's deletion. But I don't know how these things work. Thanks for your consideration. Trb333 (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome. The best I can suggest is that you try to match the article to the criteria outlined at WP:ATH. More reliable sources may well help too, if these are available. Best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thee Hypnotics wiki[edit]

Hi Derek, I'm attempting to put together a detailed wiki page about Thee Hypnotics, I've taken information previously included but rejected and stripped it down of points of view and kept it as a chronological factual history of the band and its recordings. I've included external links, refs and sources. Because of the age of the band some of the sources come from printed reviews and articles like Melody Maker etc also a ref is the extended article about the band by Mojo Mills in Shindig! which is only viewable by paying for a download of it. I have included issue numbers and dates of all used. I have more to include from Sounds NME as well. Do all references have to be web viewable? Kind regards Richard García Aka TitoPuente23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TitoPuente23 (talkcontribs) 10:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Richard,
Firstly the good news. Well done on attempting to expand the article on the band. Not all references need to be able to be viewed on the web, although when quoting articles from magazines, it is preferable to follow the template and guidance notes given at Template:Cite magazine. This will ensure that as much information as is obtainable is given within the reference, primarily to assist those readers who wish to obtain the source material. You may also consider whether there is material within the online stuff currently listed under 'External links', that can be utilised as supporting information in the article as a full in-line reference. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for further insight. I must state that you are starting from along way back as a new editor in undertaking a project as large as this, as it is more normal for newer editors to get a feel for Wikipedia by undertaking minor edits before anything on this scale.
The bad news surrounds the tone of the article as it stands. Despite your comments that you have "stripped it down of points of view", then I'm afraid that phrases such as "eager to capture the band at their rawest, hiring a mobile studio to record their incenduary high energy show", "recording a blistering Nine Times / ...", "Legendary label SUB POP were quickest off the bat,", "Sub Pop supremo Jack Endino", "anounced Thee Hypnotics as a major force to contend with", "legendary award winning producer John Leckie" etc., are all contrary to a neutral point of view. In addition, music industry quotations of the act are best kept to a bare minimum and need to present a balanced, rather than purely hyperbolic, viewpoint. In addition, the discography seems to present a rather rambling, not easy on the eye, and too-detailed account, which would be better split into sub-sections of 'albums', singles', 'videos' etc.
Have a read of those music based articles that Wikipedia considers to be 'good articles', such as Aerosmith, Black Sabbath, Evermore, to get a feel of the type of wording, layout and style, that is typical of an encyclopedia. Frankly the present article tends more towards Facebook or Twitter in its approach.
I am happy to assist further in this, but would request you do take some time reading some of the many Wikipedia editing guidelines before proceeding much further. As things stand, I must say that the present article is likely to get seriously stripped down from its current state, by some experienced Wikipedia editor or another. Regards,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)