User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 14

Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles needing link rot cleanup) counter
You should note that I am using Category:Monthly clean up category (Articles needing link rot cleanup) counter to get each month below 100 articles needing link rot cleanup. I have left the Reflinks tag on some articles needing more attention.

Tell me, can Reflinks be started without using the article tag?--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, good news. Whilst the overall counter stood at 6,000 plus in early September (if I remember correctly), and thus 2,000 or so now is clearly the way forward, all hands to the pump are much appreciated. I am not too sure what you mean by 'can Reflinks be started without using the article tag?'  How else could it identify what you/me/everyone is trying to improve ?  I am not very technically minded on procedures/protocols etc !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi
When you got time please check out the refs for Nour El-Refai. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please check out the refs of Isabella Löwengrip, Murder of Joanna Yeates, Tia Sharp and April Jones. Thank you!--BabbaQ (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please take a look at the McStay family murder. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a taste for the grotesque and gruesome ! Anyhow, ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a interest in that.. ( not in a scary way ;) hehe. Take a look at Musikhjälpen, somehow not as grotesque... ;)--BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the refs for Rebecca Simonsson. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope everything is fine with you? :) Please take a look at the refs for Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, Princess Madeleine of Sweden, Miss Universe 2014 and Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at the refs for Yohio. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yohio is done. However, I am less sure of the articles that you asked me about on 14 December 2013 and 19 January 2014. I have been away on holiday in Australia from early December to late January, so you may need to revisit those articles to see if anything is still required. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, that is fine. I will look into that. You could take a look at Lexbase. Thank you as always.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You can take a look at Sanna Nielsen as well. Thank you.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the last one for a while... Sanna Lundell and Tomas Rudin. Thank you!--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Weldon Rogers
You tagged Weldon Rogers for clean-up, citing the need to use wikitables. Here's my question: I am currently building an article that does not use wiki tables. Moreover, it uses some coding. Would you mind taking a peek inside my sandbox and comment right on the page? In this particular instance, I think wiki tables would not work as well. By contrast I added wiki tables in Steve Turre's article, where I think it works very well. I hope to add pix in the next 24 hours, then take the sandbox article live in 2-4 days. You've written-up a lot of musicians, so I would appreciate your support. Tanx! Eurodog (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying - I forgot about your missive as I have been busy elsewhere. I presume it is the proposed article on Steve Weist that you are referring to.  Firstly congratulations, as I can see that you have spent a considerable amount of time and effort, in gathering all the information together. In fact the article may be too long ! Perhaps the discography would be better as a separate article.  Equally, the amount of intricate detail might draw some editors to place a {Too detailed} tag on the piece.


 * I am not aware of this musician, so can not really comment on the information as such. However, I notice that there are some bare URLs in the body of the text, and the Career section would be better as prose, rather than in a list format - see {Prose} tag.  Also the effect of so many citations within the text means that the Inline citations section looks lightweight, given the size of the overall article.  I will leave the question of using wikitables to your judgement.  To my eyes the article is a little too lengthy and cluttered to make easy reading - although wikitables might not make much difference.


 * I am rather nit picking - frankly, the article as it stands would present on the main space as a better biography than 99.9% of those that do appear. I hope this helps,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kokum oil
You were able to do two more references for Kokum oil with Reflinks. How is this done?--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Primarily by manual intervention. For instance, Reflinks does not pick up PDF files, so these need your own input.  Alternatively, click on a reference link that Reflinks might not pick up, and see if it is a viable link.  If so, create your own reference based on the information. Reflinks is great, but it does sometimes need the personal touch. I hope this helps,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Manual intervention does not seem to me to how Kokum oil history shows what you did for that particular article. You can see from my contributions that I did a variety of oils articles yesterday, and mostly left the Reflinks tags behind.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am a little unsure what you mean. My edit simply identified one dead link; plus, by my intervention of exploring one PDF file link, added the relevant fuller reference for the latter.  I simply used Reflinks as the starting point, but made the necessary manual edit to one cite that it does not have the capability to flesh out itself.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Can you always try to format date as 23 November 2013 rather than digits though, I believe the wording is far more common on here and looks tidier IMO. Thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld  00:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the barnstar - much appreciated. On the question of the formatting of dates, I usually simply allow the automatically generated format, created by Reflinks, to prevail.  It would be even more time consuming for me to manually change all these.  Plus the question arises of whether 23 November 2013, or November 23, 2013, should prevail.  Again agonising over whichever would be appropriate would take more of my time, and possibly necessitate me revisiting the whole article's dates, and formatting thereof, to be consistent.


 * Having said that, I do personally prefer your suggestion as to it looking better and being more common in usage. Perhaps the powers that 'manage'  Reflinks could be persuaded to look again at how dates are automatically formatted ? Far too technical for me - I just keep beavering away. Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Mmm if Reflinks does digits automatically perhaps it's worth mentioning it to User:Dispenser who seems responsible for it and ask him if he can change to wording formatting. I've emailed him as he doesn't seem to be very active.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikimania 2014 includes two days of a Hackathon before the rest of the meeting, at which questions like these can be pursued. I expect to be there.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour and locate the source which is causing the bot to put the blacklist tag at the top of Dolph Lundgren and remove it?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Etaples art colony
I see you have been working on the Etaples art colony references, and probably at the same time that I tried to run Reflinks, which ran a long time without ending. I should look at the history first, and leave it to you if you have started on an article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * With hindsight I wish I had never touched the article. It was a real pig to try to sort out.  On reflection, it might have been easier to strip all of the references back to bare URLs and start from there.  Hey ho - it is done now.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Somebody must have said that hindsight is better than foresight, but your diligence made it happen. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on India
Hi, Derek. I'm in the middle of overhauling this article, since it had a copy edit tag on it along with a bunch of others. You tagged it with no footnotes; however, it does have inline citations (many of which are bare URLs, though, hence my bare urls tag). I'll be working on it for the next day or so (we just edit-conflicted), since it's a real WP:LINKFARM and is written in news style (so all the verb tenses need to be changed). After I'm done, you can do what you like with it. All the best,  Mini  apolis  21:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. I will leave it to you. I was primarily trying to turn bare URLs into fuller references, but your work seems far more wide reaching and relevant.  Over to you.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What I do (primarily copyediting) is not more important; that page has so many bare URLs it's not funny. But if you let me finish the copyedit and clean up the dead or irrelevant external links first, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks and all the best,  Mini  apolis  23:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes - that's fine with me. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

42!
Best wishes for your antipodean sojourn! (You have my contact details, so please don't hesitate to contact me should you so wish.) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Many, many thanks, and I may do so. I hope our lads make a better fist of it in the Second Test, otherwise Perth (WACA) may be more of a trial than a pleasure !


 * I'll be uncharacteristically polite by avoiding the topic and saying, "Bon Voyage", enjoy the wine, and try the beer. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Presumably you're back in blighty? I popped into Adelaide oval on the last day and ended up parking myself on the hill in the midst of the barmy army. They were the most animated group there, and I thoroughly enjoyed their company and the "stick" they were giving Mitchell Johnson. Much to my surprise, Mitchell Johnson thoroughly enjoyed the stick they were giving him, and acknowledged it with a big grin on his face! I hope you enjoyed yourself. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, back safe and well, thank you. I will not dwell on the cricket which was a sobering, and generally unpleasant, experience.  Although the Barmy Army, who we sat fairly near to at all three Tests, were good fun and supportive of a team without hope.  Really enjoyed Perth and Fremantle, plus Airlie Beach and Port Douglas where we spent some excellent time after the Fifth Test.  Plenty of highlights and very pleasant memories, although the beer was just as dreadful as everyone had warned me.  Managed to find Fat Yak at most pubs, which was drinkable (although at £9 a pint in Perth it needed to be).  Little Creatures at Freo, and the Hunter Brewery in the Hunter Valley served up very good fare, as did Four Pines in  Manley.  My wife enjoyed the wine throughout, although it was noticeable that it cost almost twice as much for the same vintage, as it does in the UK.  Generally a damn good and very enjoyable trip - just don't mention the cricket !  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for references help
I have been running Reflinks on a number of previously tagged articles, and also tagging some articles myself. I would appreciate your help on some articles that I was unable to finish checking on the unfinished articles.

Contemporary Saudi Arabian female artists

Indium gallium arsenide

Night of the Pencils‎

Virtual representation

Visor

Thank you for your great work. I will try to help reduce the lists.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not the easiest cases to unravel. Anyhow, now ✅ - I think ?!


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The easy ones I do myself, such as 107th Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Harder ones are for the expert! --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice of you to think that I am an expert ! Thank you. Anyway, I do my best and leave others to judge.  Just one point I would make is that I am away from 10 December 2013 to 25 January 2014, when Wikipedia will be far away from my thoughts.  I bet the 'articles needing link rot cleanup' numbers will shoot up then.  Whatever - keep up the good work.  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stekenjokk
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

cleanup-link rot tag and bare URLs
Derek, I see you're also working through the link rot cleanup backlog. Hooray!

It looks like you're removing the cleanup-link rot tag from articles where you've marked a bare URL as a dead link. Is that the usual practice? I'm sort of new at this, but I've been leaving the link rot tag in place if I'm not able to fill in more details for the dead link or exchange it for a reference that exists. I happened to find an archived page for 2012 Nova Scotia Men's Molson Provincial Championship just now, so I changed the dead link to what must have been an annual calendar to an archived page about the specific event. Hope that helps! Kjtobo (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Kjtobo. The question of whether dead links are bare URLs seems to divide opinion.  I say they do not, but others do not see it that way.  What concerns me is that, if every article that contains a dead link is so listed, then the link rot cleanup category will host tens of thousands of articles - which would make clean up a truly massive operation.  Your efforts, nevertheless, are much appreciated.  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Derek. I think I've been working through the backlogs slowly, and tend to review and improve each citation in the article. Now I realize that others are using the backlogs as they were intended, to simply fix the bare URLs without checking for other dead links, lousy reference formats, etc. I suppose it makes sense to bust through the moldy, old backlogs quickly so we can get back to catching these issues while the original authors are more likely to still be around.


 * And now for an unrelated question: I see that many folks use the |publisher attribute to give the domain name of the URL. I prefer to give the common name with a wikilink. For example, |publisher=Dpsk12.org vs. |publisher=Denver Public Schools. I see you've been at this much longer than I. Do you know where this debate might be taking place? So far I've been quietly editing without really participating in the Wiki editors community. Kind regards, Karen Kjtobo (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well done Karen. I admire your diligent approach to the whole question of referencing.  In an ideal world every referenced source should be re-evaluated, dissected and corrected.  Perhaps, as you are slowly discovering, this style of editing might be the way forward if Wikipedia was a finished project, and thus the opportunity was given for such analysis.  However, my edict is that blasting through the minutiae and 'fixing' things is more immediate - otherwise we will end up with backlog lists that simply swamp the here and now.  Another thought is that the whole art of referencing articles is likely to evolve as time passes.  My approach is to tackle the present and let the devil hang himself.


 * Yes, I may well have been at this longer than you - possibly because I tend to shy away from the "studying one's own navel approach" (Wiki editors community). Purely my own preferred way of getting along.  So I can not help direct you in that respect.  My advice, for what it is worth,  is to keep beavering away until someone tells you to stop.  Then beaver away with even more intent - there are more sinners than saints !  Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rorschach Test (band)
I do not see why Rorschach Test (band) appears in the linkrot category but has no tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Look at reference number three, which has an individual clean up tag on it. This is sufficient to generate its entry in the overall linkrot category.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I see that. The URL says "Application Offline for Maintenance

This application is undergoing maintenance right now. Please check back later." I will check later.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User Lettik submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * This experienced contributor has created over 300 music-based (Blues & Jazz) articles and 55 DYKs. Besides content creation, he works diligently in article maintenance by fixing and filling in references. This effort has helped many other editors (including myself) by identifying out-dated or incorrect references in a wide range of subjects. A couple examples of appreciation for Derek’s work are highlighted here and here. I ask that you kindly consider this editor’s history, attention to detail, and dedication to the project.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts!  Go  Phightins  !  16:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well deserved! Hopefully it will help Derek take his mind off other things...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * When Derek returns from "other things", we hope he will enjoy this award in the spirit it was given. He certainly deserves it! ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good grief ! What a shock and very pleasant surprise rolled into one.  Frankly, I did not know such an award existed, which makes the honour even more special.  Thanks for nominating me - although that leaves me with a lot to live up to !!  Thank you all,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you!.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Josh Weller now good vis citation adequacy?
Hi Derek - Two years ago, you put a tag on the Josh Weller article. Since then, ref's have increased 160% and verified coverage looks relatively very good, to me. Would you mind re-checking and removing the tag, if you approve (I'm more c/e and not well experienced in notability matters, so you seem the best candidate).

Thanks in anticipation. Happy new inter-solstice! Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. Tag now removed, along with a bit of a clean up of the article. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Giorgio Gomelsky
I suspect referring to Giorgio as English may not be entirely accurate. The article details his Swiss and Italian upbringing. He has lived in Paris. His citizenship is unspecified. It would seem he was resident in the UK for 20 years max, and has lived in America far longer. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where someone lives has much to do with their nationality. Anyway 'English' has been removed.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Jazz
Are you into jazz as well as blues? I love it! I'm steadily building up List of jazz standards and I started 133rd Street (Manhattan) and Pod's and Jerry's a few weeks back, very interesting indeed. Made me realize we could have entire articles on jazz history in Harlem alone!! Sometime I intend creating some articles on jazz history in more detail, perhaps I can get a grant from wikimedia UK to buy me the books I need. I'm a big fan of Bill Evans in particular, would be good to get his article up to GA sometime!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest the majority of jazz leaves me rather cold. I have dabbled in certain Wiki articles, sometimes by choice but mainly by chance. Sorry, you will have to rely on someone else to make a jazz, nice alliance.  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I used to hate jazz once upon a time. I once only played rock and blues on my guitar but the better I got the more interested I became in venturing into jazz. Technically it's very demanding and requires a tremendous amount of theoretical knowledge but I can see why most of it doesn't appeal to you!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

California State University, Long Beach, just an FYI
Most of the URLs that you recently tagged as dead links in are available as archive copies at the Wayback Machine. The archive URLs can be added to cite templates using the yes archivedate and archiveurl parameters. WBM also supports on-demand archiving. -- 109.176.164.53 (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Filling in references
Not entire sure what went wrong, but please do re-check. Yes, some citations were filled in, but more were removed. Before your edit there were 4 bare URLs. After your edit there are 10+ bare URLs. Regards, 62.107.210.245 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that you resolved the matter. Thanks, 62.107.210.245 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem. It is a case of temporarily making the situation appear worse, to facilitate finalising a more consistent referencing format.  Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Just FYI
I thought you'd like to know that it's finally all done. Sorry it took so long. And thanks so very much for your continued hard work on Wikipedia. It's inspirational. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for that. As the song goes "It's been a long time, been a long time, Been a long lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely, lonely time".  Still, all's well that end's well.  Very best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Karen Ross Article
I noticed you made recent changes to the References and External Links sections of the Karen Ross article, and I was wondering if you noticed my comments on the article's Talk page regarding the References/External links used in the article. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I must say that I did not read the talk page before making the edit. I presume then that these links are mainly redundant ?


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the problem is that two of the three External Links used in the article are no longer functional, and need to be replaced or removed from the article. The only that still works is the External link to her biography on the California Department of Food and Agriculture website. --TommyBoy (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no real interest in the article per se. Probably best to simply remove the 'dead links' and, if you wish to continue editing the article, then try to find some online references to replace them.  I notice from the talk page comments that User:Bearian thought that there were plenty to explore - albeit that was dated September 2009 !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have added those sources, but, since I know little about california government and politics, I've stayed out of it. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kaaviya Thalaivan
Thank You so much. I don't know what star should I give you! I appreciate all your achievements. :) Arjann (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. No star needed - I am lucky enough to have had several passed my way.  Probably more a recognition of the time I have spent here, rather than anything remarkable.  Keep enjoying your editing.  Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please check your work and don't just save reflinks-produced crap
The first link at PSE-36 is an Intel manual hosted on the crappy datasheets site. Reflinks can't figure that out, but you are supposed to check your work before saving. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Fihow
Hi, It is Fihow here. Can you please help fixing 3 footnotes on the same page you fixed on 8 Feb 2014? (Fihow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.146.27 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Er... possibly, if only I knew what article it was.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The coauthors attribute is deprecated
Please note the coauthors attribute is deprecated, e.g. usage (in the "proposals" section). - 86.146.133.7 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh right, thank you, I was not previously aware of this. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stand by
Hello. I am currently performing a major revamp of the European Spallation Source. Please stand by your edits, as it is causing edit conflicts and serious loss of work. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry. No further edits intended by me (improvements in referencing already done). - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being kind about it. I'll be done in about 45 min, and I will greatly appreciate your help then. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Vox Balaenae
Hey there, I saw that as a fellow Editor of the Week you edit lots of music articles.....SO, I thought I would ask you for a look see at a new article called Vox Balaenae. Its a rather cool piece of modern music by George Crumb. ANY input you would have on fleshing it out more, content, structure, would be greatly appreciated. I am working on a Releases Table to show all releases of this piece. MANY thanksCoal town guy (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. I have made a few alterations.  I note that Allmusic has four 'articles' relating to this work which are listed here.  They may help to provide further content and citable source(s).  I trust this helps. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many Thanks, I found a decent source on its history within the book "Thousand Mile Song: Whale Music in a Sea of Sound". I played cello for quite a while, so as far as technique, its not too hard to make into an article. Its the interpretation and of course gathering all of the release data that will be challenging, BUT not impossible. As far as content, can you think of anything as far as an additional section? Reception, popularity? I thought about specific players, but in all honesty, I cant see that as being specifically notable to the article contentCoal town guy (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Certainly some critical reaction would be good, particularly if you can find a balance between good and bad (well, warm and lukewarm).  Date(s) of key recordings and/or performances should be notable enough, plus you may get some further ideas from articles such as Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven), Cello Concerto (Dvořák), Neoclassicism (music) etc.  To be honest, modern classical music is not my forte, but this may give you some more ideas as to improving the article's content.  Good luck,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Clearing the linkrot backlog
It is great to see someone tackling some of the editing backlog, in particular the list of pages with suspected linkrot. From your edit history, I see you get through several hundred pages per week but I have some concerns about the usefulness of the end result. The Reflinks tool pulls some data from each referenced page, but is far from perfect. This is why it is not set loose as a bot-operated task amending references and saving the new version without human intervention. It is a human driven tool and needs a serious amount of additional input to produce a good result.

When dealing with the linkrot backlog, the aim is not to simply clear thousands of pages from the list by filling in the bare minimum amount of information but instead to improve the quality of the referencing by including as much information as possible. This requires the human editor to take the suggested changes made by the Reflinks tool and then review and amend them by improving the title, author, work, publisher and publication date information and adding anything and everything else that may be useful. Reflinks is not able to extract all of the information on a page nor can it extract information from all pages. Sometimes the extracted information is poor quality or simply wrong and the human editor is expected to fix it rather than simply hitting "save".

Another useful part of fixing linkrot is linking to an archive copy of each reference where available and creating archive copies where they do not already exist. I haven't seen a single edit where you have done this. Now that the WayBack Machine allows on-demand archiving that part of the task has become very much easier.

I am not going to nit pick through every edit you have made, but I have picked out a few that are typical.

e.g.

You added this title: This could easily have been amended to something like this: All the information was already there. It just needed minor human intervention to format it using the right parameters.

Likewise for this entry: The title contains author information which should have been extracted into separate parameters: It took just a few seconds to fix.

This title is promotional and the publisher is simply the site hostname: These could easily have been amended to:

Several other opportunities to add additional author, publisher and publication date information were missed on a number of the other references on that page.

Additionally, all three references that you tagged as being dead links are available in the WayBack Machine. Archive links and full references could have been added. It's easier to add these details when the references are open in the Reflinks form than trying to do it later by searching through page source code.

I have made the required changes and added the additional archive details for all of the other references.

I find all this work often takes about one to two minutes per reference, whereas your edit history shows you spend about two minutes per page, often with a double digit number of references processed.

Reflinks is not able to delve into PDF files and extract the required information to populate the template. It puts up dummy data and the editor is expected to manually correct it by looking inside the PDF document and at the document meta data.

e.g.

which you changed to Your edit adds no information beyond that contained in the original URL. The human editor should manually add the correct details.

e.g. The same issue is found

which you changed to

and

which you changed to Neither of these edits add any extra information that could help find the document again should it ever move to a different URL.

While these were listed in the "pages requiring linkrot fixes" category it was easy to find them. Now that you have cleared the linkrot tag, thereby removing them from the category, finding PDF references with similar poor quality information has become much harder. Has someone now got to go back through thousands of your edits to find them?

Please fix PDF references by manually adding as much information as possible. While you're there please also create and link to an archive copy to prevent future linkrot.

Finally, in multiple opportunities to use the trans-title and language parameters were missed. These would make the references just that little bit more useful to non Korean speakers.

In summary, please make high quality edits by filling reference citation data as completely as possible. Improve on the limited data returned by the automated part of the process. This is not a race. Wikipedia will never be finished. There will always be a backlog. Attempting to clear the backlog by making edits that add little or no detail and require a lot of further work by other editors are, in my view, counter-productive.

If you need help understanding any part of the template syntax please ask. There are plenty of editors who can answer these questions in detail. -- 91.85.54.79 (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite a damning list of charges. I might have treated this with the depth it perhaps deserves, if you had not hidden behind a IP address.   Did you forget to sign on ?


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the identity of the messenger is more important to you than the content of the message, I suspect it will be a waste of time continuing this discussion. -- 91.85.49.247 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)



Fredrik Pihl
Thanks for your work on this.

I didn't think, myself, of changing the "References" to "External Links", I'll remember that.

And I noticed that it is and not  that I have been using for years. Thanks for that, too.

I have proposed deletion of this topic because it lacks notability. What are your thoughts on that?

There are a couple of other things to fix on this page, but I'm thinking that if it is going away, why bother. Can you think of a reason for keeping it? Also see, Talk:Fredrik Pihl.

I thought I would wait the 7 days and then request deletion. Softtest123 (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Having given the article and subject a slightly longer look, I would agree that he seems to fail the notability test on all counts. Allmusic has no article for him either, which is a decent indication to me that he is without any real stature.  I concur with your thoughts regarding deletion. Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

One for you?
,, , , , , .... etc.   Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for that. Actually, I think I once briefly looked at his case, but Allmusic seemed somewhat lacking, so I passed him over.  Expect the usual top rate, all singing all dancing article, before the domestic cricket season starts (around four weeks away now).  Failing that, you will get the usual dross from me.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ...and another one...., , etc. I could do it in a few days time, but if you want to have a go first that's fine with me.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With other duties on the horizon, I think I'll leave it to you this time. Is he notable ?... and where do you find them ?!


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

100,000
Wow! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A bit of a surprise to me, as the edit count under my 'Preferences' section currently states 97,758 ! Either way, I really should get out more. I hope you are well.  Best wishes, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a bit of a nasty "tease" isn't it. (My gap is ~300 in ~42,000 = ~0.75% - not sure what you've done to get 2.25%!!) And yes, you should get out more. (As should I ... )  Yes, I'm deceiving myself that I'm well - hopefully it's not a deception. (e.g. I'm forced to reflect on Spike Milligan's wish for his tombstone: "I told you I wasn't well ... " ) Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations
If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

```Buster Seven   Talk  13:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff Cello Sonata QUESTION
[you could look at the talk page] your input or response would be cool...My concern was for the phrasing about most of the main themes being introduced by the piano when the cello solo, starts the sonata......Coal town guy (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I presume that the wording comes from the cited reference of Harrison, Max (2006). Rachmaninoff: Life, Works, Recordings. London: Continuum. pp. 101–3. ISBN 0-8264-9312-2. Without access to that source, except via here, I would not know the extent, or otherwise, of the validity of the statement.  As always, it is reliable sources that are the key to any such claim; rather than any particular editor's 'knowledge'.  I know I am probably teaching grandmother to suck eggs, but the opening paragraph of Verifiability is most apt - In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it".


 * I hope this helps. (I'll put it another way; I would not personally have a clue as to the 'correct' terminology to describe the significance of cello versus piano for Cello Sonata (Rachmaninoff)) !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Much appreciate the reply, I am certain, I still have alot to learn.......I will try to get my score out, and look for another source.....Coal town guy (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AHA, found a chamber ref in my score. The piano and cllo parts were equal, HOWEVER, one of the iniyial observations is that the sonata requires a balance in its performance OR the cello could easily be subsumed by the piano, ergo, a mis interpretation of a badly balanced performance could lead to the conclusion easily...Coal town guy (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Splendid. There is a world of difference between original research and pure research. Over to you ... - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles
Could you please take a look at the refs for Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson. Thank you :)--BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)