User talk:Contributer67

Your edits to The Bachelors are in variance with what is claimed by Con Cluskey on his talk page, and - I have removed such parts as I can, leaving some. I still think the whole part "The Split and beyond" has no relevance to the actual events - If you have independent verifiable proof for your claims please quote them. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP and WP:COI. Thank you. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard

Having not viewed the article on The Bachelors for some time I was shocked to find it much altered with changes which are basically untruths and containing gratuitous comment re. the involvement of a Mr. Kinsella, who I believe is the same Mr. Kinsella involved in dubious actions re. Robbie Williams.

Wikipedia is not a place for such comment and is meant as a factual truthful reference. It is not an advertising place for individuals.

I have corrected the article [The Split and Beyond] to reflect the truth of the Split and beyond. The neutral perspective.

All my information is from well documented and easily available in distributed truthful and official documents and is noted as such.

I have no knowledge of a Con Cluskey talk page. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Contributer67


 * I have responded on the article's talk page, but I reiterate, I have not edited the article, save for removing the link to John Stoke's Bachelors, which, as you pointed out, was no longer available, however, another editor has correctly added it again, now it is back online. If your claims are correct and there is verifiable independent confirmation from reputable sources ie BBC, Newspapers etc I will happily edit to reflect that. I have never added anything which couldn't be verified from third parties.


 * Perhaps you have a photo that can be used from the days when the Bachelors were in their heyday - back in the 60s, early 70s. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bachelors
The link for The Bachelors featuring John Stokes is a legitimate link to an existing site. If, as you claim, the that site is contravention of a high court judgement then you should use that judgement to have the site removed. Meanwhile it remains a legitimate link in the history of the Bachelors, and removing the link from Wikipedia could be construed as vandalism. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bachelors
Unreferenced material. In view of your continual edits, addition of partisan material, and reversions I have taken this matter for arbitration. You may wish to join in the debate at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your 'edits' to The Bachelors
Well, Contributer67, again you have called my edits 'vandalism': "undo vandalism - yet again - existing links correct and complete". That's not very courteous or accurate (you still talk about the links, when the edit is to the description thereof--is this being purposely obtuse?). It wasn't vandalism, they were correct and complete, and again you have introduced language that is so far from objective a child can see it's partial. I might add that in an earlier posting you said not to know so much about Wikipedia policies and editorial guidelines--perhaps it is time to brush up on that. I might add also that the text as you have restored it is unattractive, unclear, and in places ungrammatical. For instance, you put footnotes in the references? Just click on them and see where they go--nowhere. Perhaps you are also responsible for the last four 'entries' in the reference section, which come from nowhere and go nowhere. I would suggest spending some time in Sandbox. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply (Contributer67 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC))

I apologise for my lack of Wikipedia expertise as I have apologised before. Sadly, as with many businessmen today, I simply do not have the time for "spending time" in sandboxes and brushing up.

I am not a Wikipedia fanatic and only visit this one page to ensure that the history of a band I have been an expert on is chronicled correctly and is legally accurate.

I do appreciate others who clean up the links and grammar etc. but I do not appreciate vandalism and those with a hidden agenda promoting a gentleman who is "in contempt of court". This contempt and other offences is more than verified and referenced. The law is the law.

I will check the references as the HTML may have been tampered with. Thank you for bringing that to talk contributor's attention. The footnotes are a useful and accurate indication to a reader of the veracity of the content accessed by the links. I feel that it is important to point this out in a non partisan way.

Contributer67 (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)}


 * The problem is you are obviously not pointing it out in a non-partisan way--that's as clear as day. Furthermore, engaging in name-calling ('juvenile' and 'vandalism') does not help your cause; besides, as the 'third opinion' expressed by a Wikipedia editor pointed out, your comments on those weblinks "are clearly unsupported (by reliably sourced) comments about the content of the site and must be deleted." It's plain and simple: you agree with the account on one website and disagree with the account on another, and that's partisan, and diminishes the value of Wikipedia as a whole. I note also that you misconstrue my remarks: one cannot have footnotes inside references--it simply does not work. And they haven't been 'tampered with'--you put them there, and you keep putting them there. Also, I did not bring footnotes or some such thing to an editor's attention: I brought your repeated partisan editorializing to an editor's attention.


 * In short, your continued reverting of those edits is unwarranted, and it should stop. I really hope there will be an end to this. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Local Dictionary of Biography?
Hello C67,

On 3 January 2008 you added a note for the performance on Radio Luxembourg; your reference is "Kilmainham & Inchicore Local Dictionary of Biography", without author, publication information, or page number. I've looked all over for such a title and can't find anything, not even in the National Library of Ireland. What comes closest is a 1999 book by Seosamh Ó Broin, called "Inchicore, Kilmainham and district". Is that the book you mean? If so, can I please have the page number? If not, will you please check the accuracy with which you rendered the title, and provide me with more information? If this is a local, unpublished booklet, then I'd like to have author, title, year, and page number.

I would like to clean up all the references in the article, though I'm leaving that High Court stuff alone, which I assume is not available on the internet, and a hornet's nest anyway.

Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)