User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 6

Jeff Allen
Good question!! He was a bit of a mystery to man as far as I could see, though I knew he had played more recently with Mick Taylor, Van Morrison, and Bonnie Tyler. This suggests that Jeff Allen from Hello did go on to play with Bonnie Tyler, so without being 100% sure, I'd say it's a fair bet it's the same guy. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a little research, and it is the same man ! His full name is Jeffrey Allen - he was born on 23 April 1946 in Matlock, Derbyshire, and has played with Hello, East of Eden, Babe Ruth and with Snowy White et al.  See Snowy White fanclub page here . Got around a bit didn't he.  64 years old in three months time, I guess he is winding down now. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good work! I like a bit of detective work. Given how many bands this guy has worked with, he could do with his own article. I might get on to that in the next day or two :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Assistance?
Derek - I know you can't be unaware of the work going on with article cleanup, evidenced by the sections above. Do you think perhaps you could lend a hand in this effort? There is a lot of effort being put exerted by others; it would be greatly appreciated if you could help out. Thanks! Frank |  talk  19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sure ain't easy... It might perhaps help if an admin could make clear exactly what Derek could best help do, given that it seems to be the view that everything he has ever contributed is presumed to be a copyright violation unless it can be proved otherwise.  Am I right?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. I won't name names because it's behind him, but the single most proactive contributor we ever had in a multiple article infringement situation helped out by tagging those of his own articles for which he could identify the source from which content was closely copied. This was before the process board was formally opened, so his CCI is not archived there. He sped the processing of his CCI considerably by doing so. Another contributor helped out by rewriting articles in the temporary spaces when they had been blanked. In these cases, it's best to keep rewrites rather simple, since we would have to evaluate them to make sure that the new versions are copyright violation free, and complex rewrites drawing on multiple or inaccessible sources can slow that down. This can also be beneficial in case there is lingering confusion about close paraphrasing. Sometimes contributors underestimate the amount of rewriting that is necessary to create a new copyright rather than a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have remained largely silent on these matters, for a number of reasons. Firstly, after contributing for over four years, and something approaching 21,500 edits, to find I am violating copyright is a major shock.  Clearly there is something radically amiss in the Wiki system, that allows someone to do something so utterly terrible, for so long, without anyone raising an eyebrow. Secondly, I see articles that I have contributed towards being effectively deleted at a great pace.  Frankly whatever I, or anyone else does, to try to rectify this situation, it will take considerably longer than the one week deadline that was set.  Thirdly I have been tried, judged and sentenced without any input from myself.  Moreover, because I have committed one 'murder', the assumption seems to be that all murders (in the universe, ever) are attributal to me.


 * Okay (actually it is not) I have erred. All my edits are now viewed not with suspicion, but are definitely copyvio, without henceforth needing any tangible evidence at all to support this. So the question then is, how can I contribute in a positive manner without all and sundry stating ..."Oooohh that Derek, he is the ultimate copyvio maestro, and everything he has ever done is wicked".  Whatever anyone may think I know that I have acted in a good faith, and positive manner throughout.  If everyone else chooses to feel differently, then so be it.  I will walk away.  Frankly, I have much better things to do in my life than to wait for the next article deletion to appear, and thus further lower my flagging spirits.


 * To be honest, phrases such as 'multiple article infringement situation' and 'CCI' mean nothing to me. I am a humble sub-editor, without any admin aspirations, who tried to do his best to improve Wikipedia.  Seemingly I have failed.  I really do not need to be kicked when I am down.  Tell me, in simple terms, and in realistic, vaguely English, terminology, how I may help.  I might do so.  For what to me is just a hobby, it is sorely tempting to say "I have had enough of this kangaroo court", and find something else to occupy my time.


 * Apparently I need to be an expert on American law - particularly relating to copyright. Funny how I can not find one single Yank who understands the laws of cricket. As I became more immersed in Wikipedia in the last 18 months or so, I realised that it is really Ameripedia.


 * Do what you will - I have almost lost the will to survive here.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Derek - I'll keep my reply short and simple, to hopefully avoid you feeling like you're being piled upon here. I would say the following in response: 1) I don't think anyone has accused you of anything but good faith here. You'd likely have been blocked if it were thought you were intentionally harming the project or willfully ignoring its policies. 2) The simple answer to what we'd like you to do is to edit the articles listed above which haven't already been edited by someone else, and remove or rewrite any copyright-infringing text. Following that, you can examine the articles listed at Contributor copyright investigations/20091230. That's what several other folks are doing now. 3) In response to your cricket analogy, if a Yank wanted to play the game, you'd expect him to play by its rules, whether or not he was native to a cricket-playing country (of which I know there are many). If he didn't, you wouldn't change the rules to accommodate him; you'd insist he either learn the rules or sit on the sidelines observing until he was confident of understanding them. I doubt that would be viewed as an attack on the individual; rather it would be an affirmation that there are specific rules to the game (which are not United Kingdom-specific but rather universal) which must be observed in order to maintain the integrity of the sport itself. Copyright law is quite similar, especially as regards UK and USA application of it. Rather an apt analogy you hit upon, I think. Frank  |  talk  02:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's quite unlikely that any of the articles to which you've contributed will be "lost". Where you've inadvertently stayed too close to the text of online sources, others will need to check those sources and, where necessary, rewrite the text so that it does not fall foul of the copyvio rules.  The more difficult cases (to someone like me) are where you have used offline sources (those things we used to call "books"), especially when the books go beyond unambiguous factual statements such as chart positions and contain biographies or commentaries.  Those are the cases where it is difficult for anyone else to rewrite the articles, or at least to maintain the content which you have added.  I'm still learning what is best to do in this situation, but it does seem to me that one idea might be for you to step back from active editing for a short while, check through the copyvio rules (and, for example, User:Moonriddengirl's personal guidelines), and then be prepared to demonstrate that you've learned a lesson here by re-editing one of the articles that you have recently started so as to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the copyvio patrol admins that you can be "trusted" as a text editor in the future.  We volunteered to be part of a community, and like it or not we need to abide by the rules of that community, however much we might feel that particular circumstances are unfair.  In the meantime, I (and hopefully others) will try to maintain the service that I think we're here for (that is, providing information to readers) by "rescuing" articles with which you've been involved.  It's irritating that this has happened, and I know how frustrated you must feel, but at the end of the day it's all just ripples in a big pond, and personally I'm not too bothered about having a whole slew of new (to me) articles to get involved in.  Especially as it's snowy down here, and I'm not going anywhere.  Chin up !!  ;-)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Steve Harley
My personal view on that is that verbatim quotes are fine when they add useful commentary, but shouldn't be used for purely factual statements - where it could be argued that you're using the quote marks to duplicate what could easily be rewritten. But rather than duplicating that text you would rewrite it to avoid the less commonplace words like "heyday". So, in that case, I'd say:- "Journalist Donald A. Guarisco stated that "By his third album, Steve Harley had developed a strong grasp of how to combine his artistic ambitions with strongly crafted pop tunes." The Best Years of Our Lives reached #(whatever) in the album charts, and became his most successful album. ... "  But that's just my personal opinion. I think the best general advice I can give is that (1) it's best to rewrite where possible, and (2) don't worry too much about your own grammar or style in doing that, because someone else will come along and improve it and, if you are using professionally written text as a basis, it's all too easy just to think "that'll do" and copy it across. Good to see you're still here! Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pete Mayes
There is a message for you on my talk page. Don't really know why it's there rather than here, but anyway, well done! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Derek - I am very impressed with your recent rewrites. I really appreciate the time you're spending and I see real results that are much appreciated. I can't speak for everyone but I can say I've seen responses from others in the past that weren't pleasant to deal with, and I am happy to be associated with this effort as a positive experience. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by imagining you find this pleasant, but I will commend you highly for participating anyway. I realize it's likely you do not enjoy every minute of a rewrite; nevertheless, the results are tangible. The project is better for your efforts, past and present, and I hope we can count on your continued participation in the future. Frank |  talk  02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. By the way, Derek - do you want to tackle The Olympic Runners from scratch again, or shall I add it to my "to do" list?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll have a go at The Olympic Runners, if that's OK. It may be next week though.
 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. It's a marathon, not a sprint.  Or maybe it's a steeplechase, where we get splashed (or even spiked) occasionally...  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fell at the first five hurdles, got overtaken by an old aged pensioner on a lame donkey, and a three year old on a tricycle. Still running though. LOL. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For when you need a new challenge - Bluesology. Yikes!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Derek - I'm going to be well occupied in the real world over the next week or so, so will have to slow down here (not that I can keep up with your pace anyway) - just to let you know that, if I'm not around for a few days, it's not that I've lost interest, just real life getting in the way. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean 'real world' ? THIS is the 'real world' - full of heartache, frustration, disappointment and, at times, a few laughs ! I do fully understand and thanks for letting me know.  Actually I wonder how far you will get in this weather !! I will keep beavering away, and if I have time will look at 'Bluesology'. I am aware of them, but do wonder whether, as a stand alone article, they are notable enough. Take care, and we will correspond again before long. Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Too late re Bluesology - I had a few minutes to spare!! Expansion and thoughts welcome, of course... Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's never too late ! You've done a grand job considering they way it looked before. I could not resist a tinker or two, but carefully avoided the dreaded copywhatsit. I was convinced old Rod the Mod had been involved with them, but I think I got them confused with Steampacket !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Honeycombs

 * Thanks. :) You were right about that one causing unrest. It's hard for some contributors to understand why self-published sources aren't ideal. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

 * Unless I am somewhat mistaken, this proposal is dead already. If you want my opinion, and you don't, all editors should display the Wikipedia Wanker award, indicating that we all should have much better things to do.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Need any help?
Derek, I've noticed your current situation regarding copyvio, and would be happy to help in rewriting/removing copyrighted text from any articles that are still outstanding. I for one am sure that your intentions were only to improve this encyclopedia, so I hope this can all get sorted out quickly and you can get back to doing the excellent work that you have been doing for the past few years. If there are any articles that you need help with, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take a look. Regards.--Michig (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, and many thanks for your kind and generous offer. It touched my heart.  To be honest, any help is much appreciated.  I do not know how aware you are of the processes on copyvio investigations - probably much more than I was.  Anyhow, the listing is here - Contributor copyright investigations/20091230.  From this you will note that probably only 10-20% of those identified have been 'assessed', so I am guessing that the re-writing work will grow to be a much bigger problem, than is presently obvious.  I sincerely hope I am wrong !  User:Ghmyrtle and I (and nameless others) are almost on top of those highlighted so far.


 * Perhaps I could ask you to cast a critical eye on the following - Brian Hyland, Adam Faith, Billy Fury, Lonnie Donegan and Tommy Roe. These are articles I have spent considerable time on (amongst many others), and have not yet been assessed as problematical.  It might to nice to nip them in the bud before anything happens.  A couple more may be worth a look.  The Brothers Four has been 'reverted' but looks in a sorry state, and Frank Ifield less so, but I am certain a substantial discography of his has disappeared somewhere in the editing.  I remember your interests include reggae, so I will pass any such copyvio assessed items your way too, if that is alright (none so far).  I understand a further copyvio assessment is due on Tuesday, so I may have need of you further.


 * If I was to be pessimistic, I feel that this has the potential to be months of work; so I will understand if you get bored quickly, or the articles I have suggested so far are not to your taste. I am trying to concentrate on articles I have personally created at the moment, which is enough to keep me busy !


 * Many thanks,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see what I can do with those. I have plenty of good sources on reggae, punk, indie, and alternative rock artists so these would be easiest for me regarding adding new sources, but I'm happy to take a look at other areas. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I realise I have given you names that must seem like they came from the bloody Stone Age !?! An alternative suggestion is for you to trawl through the CCI, and cherry pick those artists you feel better equipped to have a look at. For example, I found Jimmy Cliff, Derrick Morgan, Derrick Harriott, Bitty McLean, Bob Andy and Kingmaker.  All of these articles are unassessed at present, but prevention might be better than cure.  Just a thought - I will leave it to you, because, as I have already made clear, every little bit will help.


 * You might care to add your name to the (very small) list higher up this talk page; so others can see the extent of your involvement. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll take a look at those too. I've made some changes to Brian Hyland, rewording some passges and adding a couple of further sources, and I think that one should be ok now. If nothing else, I'll learn something about artists I don't know much about doing this.--Michig (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Rewrites
Derek - I'm still impressed with your efforts and honestly I'm having trouble keeping up! Thanks for your hard work. Don't be discouraged by what may seem a long effort; remember there is no WP:DEADLINE. I've looked at and moved a bunch of rewrites to mainspace; I've found myself making several similar changes along the way. Would you consider looking at a couple of them and noting them and perhaps including those minor formatting changes while you're already editing the articles? I understand if you're too swamped to consider more stuff - and I understand if your goal is to get articles good enough so they can be un-tagged. But if you could spare a little time to make a couple of more formatting (not policy-violating at all! just formatting) changes, it would be appreciated. Let me know, and if you feel you have too much to consider more at the same time, I totally understand. My efforts will continue either way, and your efforts have been and continue to be appreciated. Frank |  talk  23:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I have noted a few common threads, and will attempt to remember these for future efforts. Attempting to write with American English spellings, punctuation etc., is not easy when you are born and bred with English English, but I do try.  The one that slightly baffles me is the moving of categorisation, sorry categorization, of birth and death dates to the end of that list.  It is not something I have really noticed before.  They generally in my experience, and perhaps incorrectly, almost always appear to be at the top of that list. You are right; I am trying to correct as much as I can, and quickly, to get articles untagged, but I do take your formatting comments on board.


 * There are a number of reasons for my haste. Firstly, the 'assessment' of those identified on the CCI is currently 10-20%, and I am pessimistically expecting a whole raft of other articles needing attention.  The more that can be dealt with now, the less of a task it will ultimately appear to be. Secondly, I feel the small team (bless them all) working on this is, more or less, on top of the current workload now, but who knows what the future brings.


 * Also, I am conscious that some articles may be dealt with in a 'rough and ready' way to remove the tag - which is OK to an extent - but the edit history can be 'lost'. I will give you one example.  Frank Ifield had, I feel pretty sure because I created it, a decent discography with chart placings, songwriter credits etc.  Looking at the history of the article now, my contribution seems to have disappeared altogether, but far more importantly, the opportunity to resurrect that part of the article, which I do not think had any copyvio connotations, has seemingly been lost.


 * PLEASE do not get the wrong impression here, I am not saying that my input is sacrosant and must be preserved at all cost. It is just that, in the relatively small passage of time since all this came to light, I do get the impression that some non-copyvio information within articles may disappear for ever, unless someone acts sooner rather than later.  Dave Peabody is another article where I think if I had stepped in earlier, more information could have been preserved than is presently the case. The complete 'history' seems to have vanished.


 * I am probably not explaining myself very well here. The Wikipedia technical talk is way beyond me - but can you understand my urgency ?!?  I accept, fully, that the whole process here may take months to complete.  However, it will be a good deal harder, for all concerned, if editing history (granted, some needing considerable work to eliminate any copyvio; but other parts probably not at all) is not easily retrievable.


 * Bloody hell, I do ramble on.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have been more specific. British English is no more right than American English; I made a few changes of that sort only because the subject of the article is often American. If you skipped that one I'd say it's no big deal at all. More significant in my mind are the formatting of the Allmusic refs (title, author), the placement of refs outside punctuation, and the removal of duplicate links (like putting an allmusic link as an "external link" when it exists as a reference, and sorting of cats. As for the year of birth/death cats...there's a convention for that somewhere but I don't see it immediately.


 * Regarding haste and loss of material, do not be concerned. Even deleted revisions are actually still visible to administrators unless they are removed by the WP:OVERSIGHT process, which these would have no reason to be involved in. The older revisions are still in the database and if there is legitimately content that should be restored, it can be done. Thanks! Frank  |  talk  01:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I moved two more (Larry Garner and James Harman) to mainspace. I want to add another note to this whole process; it may sound odd but...whatever. I have tried really hard to give each of these articles individual attention. I've never been a particular fan of the blues, although I wouldn't say I dislike the genre. It's definitely not a topic area I've spent any considerable time in. But having spent some time looking through these articles, I'm coming to know an entirely new subject area, and I have to say: that's a useful thing. I'm seeing some overlapping names in these articles...along the lines of "wasn't he the one from Louisiana?...or didn't he play with B.B. King?..." I have spent a little more time on a couple of them, and in particular I'd like you to note Larry Garner, where I added a completely new reference. Did it need it? No. Is it a big deal? No. But the point is that at least for the moment, you've sparked some interest in a topic I wouldn't likely have come to by myself. Also, I'd say Harman deserves a little more attention; I found some articles, especially in the L.A. Times, but couldn't quite find a way to work them in. Perhaps you can make a mental note to return to him later on. I think there's plenty more to add in about him. Anyway, I'm continuing down the list, and thanks for your continued efforts. Frank |  talk  02:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pleased that my efforts, ham fisted to be sure at times, have sparked some interest (in you at least). I am not a life long devotee of the blues at all, something that I'm rather beginning to regret. The stories behind many of the musicians, their interaction with others of that genre, the cross-pollination of ideas and styles, and the relatively small number of people that really made it all happen, is, I think, even to the only vaguely curious, somewhat fascinating. I particularly found accord with your comments along the lines of - "wasn't he the one who played the harmonica on the track that..." etc. Garner and Harman, probably do deserve much more attention - frankly, without totally over-blowing the whole thing, so do several others.  If I ever properly get over all this copyvio stuff, and have the time to devote, it is something I will return to.


 * Do you know what really, really, really surprises me though. All right, old time or even modern day blues is not a mainline interest/topic.  But what you have is a 55 year old, white Englishman, creating numerous articles about American, (mainly)  black, blues musicians.  To me, and do not read this incorrectly for I mean no racial / ethnic slur whatsoever, it is as bizarre to me as a Louisiana / Mississippi black person, being the first to create a Wikipedia article about say, British 1970s punk rock or our Royal Family. Do the 'native' Americans not care about their musical history ? It creates a fertile ground for me to explore, so I'm not complaining.


 * More generally, I am sorry for the problems I have unwittingly created, and am trying my very best to try to rectify this. Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Freddy Cannon
D'oh!! - thanks, corrected now. I put Bluesology up for WP:DYK - we shall see... Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bull City Red
Hi, Derek.

The administrator reviewing today's CP listings came to me, since he knew I had been working the CCI, with some concerns about the rewrite of Talk:Bull City Red/Temp. I'm afraid you've run into one of the less tangible problems with copyright in US law with that one, and the one that is both hardest for people who are not familiar with it to anticipate and for those who are familiar with it to explain. :)

Copyright law does not just cover the language used, it also covers the "structure and feel" of the original. Facts are not copyrighted, but the order in which they are presented (oddly enough) and the facts which are chosen for presentation are. As the courts said in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (a landmark decision here), "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers"; the Court also indicated that "originality is not a stringent standard; it does not require that facts be presented in an innovative or surprising way" and that "[t]he vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be." Excluded here are "sweat of the brow" compilations. That's why directories are not copyrightable. There is no creativity in alphabetically listing people with their addresses and phone numbers. A chronological discography is not copyrightable, nor is one organized by chart achievement, but a discography weighed by "influence" or some other human-determined characteristic would be.

While you've done a very good job with the language at Talk:Bull City Red/Temp, it seems to be largely an abridgment of the AMG article, and the right to create abridgments is reserved to the copyright holder by US law. It includes basically the same information (including subjective information) presented in largely the same order. It can be very hard to avoid this when relying on a single source, I'm afraid, which is why the essay Close paraphrasing recommends using several where possible. Where it isn't (and I don't doubt it isn't with the old blues guys; I myself have worked extensively with old jazz musicians, and finding sources is a pill), we face a greater challenge in selecting what we can reproduce and in ensuring that we aren't following the structure of the original.

This one needs a bit more retooling before it goes into article space. I'd be happy to work with you on it, either to talk with you in more detail about it or to demonstrate some approaches I might use. Of course, you're also welcome to take a stab at it yourself. It may be that this one followed a bit too closely only because of the sense of time pressure you allude to above.

We can work with you on that, too. I can only speak for myself, but when a contributor is actively helping with a CCI, I'm willing to go quite a long way to accommodate him. We can try to take it at a comfortable pace for you insofar as possible. We've got plenty of CCIs, and this one is neither more nor less urgent than the others. If material is deleted that you think should be restored, I can pull it up from history. If it's non-creative, like infoboxes and discographies, I can put it directly back into the article. If it's creative material, I can't (we can't publish it here if copyright is dubious, I'm afraid, even outside of article space), but I *can* e-mail it to you, if you enable an e-mail address (or if you contact me via mine, in the toolbox beside my user page, which would allow me to mail you in return). Just let me know how I can help.

And I'll close by apologizing for my long notes. Don't forget you can archive me whenever convenient, because I'm afraid I can turn a talk page unusable pretty quickly. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Phew - it is not surprising to me that editors can unwittingly fall foul of copyright problems !  However, I broadly understand the situation - so, what to do.  As you have intimated, the fact that there is only one viable source for the bulk of this article is the crux of the problem.  For the third time now I have tried to find something else as a reference, and drawn a blank.  It is not really pressure of time, more a lack of articles to draw upon.  I'll be honest with you that I knew precisely nothing about this old blues boy before attempting the initial article, which also does not help. Frankly, if this is one casualty of the ongoing process, then I will easily live with it - there are plenty of other articles which are much closer to my heart.  Also, in all truth, those that are much more likely to be read !


 * If you feel there really is still some mileage in Bull City Red, then I am willing to be led / advised by you. My e-mail address is on my user page - easy to find, I think.  More generally, I believe a fairly comprehensive discography has been 'lost' for Frank Ifield, which might be nice if you could find and restore it.


 * Do not worry about the length of your missive - I can ramble on for England. I will archive most of this talk page in due course.  For the time being, however, it is easier for me to have all correspondence relating to the various copyvio issues, in one place for ease of reference etc.  Thanks,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few Google Books results that may help with this one:, , , , , . They might not provide detailed coverage but could provide alternative sources for a few of the sentences in the article.--Michig (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * New sources! Lovely! :D


 * I took a pass at the article (prior to seeing the sources). My purpose here was primarily to switch up some of the material in both structure and order of presentation, while remaining logical. It helps a lot if the structure of the sentences changes significantly along with the language and if there is another logical sequence. I went a bit more chronological than AMG. I'll take a look at the sources Michig came up with, because that can make all the different. Bless Googlebooks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All right; I've added in a bit of information from those book sources, and while there's no doubt room for improvement, I think there's enough change-up from AMG that we should have no lingering issues. Now I'll go pull up the discography for Ifield and restore that to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You see; I turn my back for a few minutes and look what happens ! Many, many thanks to the both of you. The Bull City Red article looks fine to me, and I am pleased about Ifield's discography - for reasons that I don't recall, I seem to remember it took me ages to put that together. All's well that end's well.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to rescue that kind of stuff. Please just let me know. :) I see that you had taken some steps with Lil' Ed Williams, but as it was before this conversation you probably did not realize that a more major overhaul was necessary. I've blanked it so that it can be restructured a bit more in temp space. I just wanted to note it personally so that you would know that your work had not gone unnoticed. I appreciate the steps you're taking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Bern Elliott and the Fenmen is in a similar position. You made a good start on a rewrite back before this conversation, but unfortunately the structure remains largely similar. I've blanked it to give time for a slightly more thorough overhaul.


 * While I'm here, I'll note that as I'm particularly loathe to presumptively delete when somebody is working as hard as you are, I've got in an order for a used version of The Book of Golden Disc, which should be arriving pretty soon. Once it does, I'll be able to check the ones that are sourced to it so I can verify them clean or let you know if there actually are issues that need addressing, rather than just presuming. I do appreciate your continued hard work here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Olympic Runners
Hmm. I've asked MLauba to explain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Paul Cattermole
Do you want a copy of the e-mail my (unfortunately now deceased) friend Mr. Seamarks, Mr. Cattermole's tutor (I believe), sent me correcting the quote last year- he claimed he was the one being (mis-)quoted?... Not sure how helpful it will be, but I should be able to send it your way if there is any chance it is. Schissel | Sound the Note! 21:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure either, but feel free to e-mail me (address on my user page), or send it here, and I will endeavour to find out if we can use it.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't let a setback get you down
Avoiding close paraphrases is terribly difficult, in particular when trying to re-visit a topic on which you have written previously. It is disheartening for me as the reviewer when I have to decide that the efforts you put into an entire section has to go, and I fully appreciate that it is much harder on you.

In this specific case, I recommend letting others rewriting the history of The Olympic Runners, simply because with every rewrite, it will become harder for you to come up with new turns of phrases and find ways to tell the story differently. It is in general easier for me to spot where issues are simply because I'm, as I said elsewhere, totally unfamiliar with every single of the articles I've reviewed so far.

For the next rewrites, the only advice I can give you is to reiterate Moonriddengirl's earlier advice: where you can, work with more than one source and synthesize then into language that is your own. And a piece of advice of my own, leave articles you have worked on recently or those musicians or bands you know too well for others, providing insight and corrections to improve the article instead. That will work best.

Again, don't let this get to you. It is hard. It is stressful, and it is disappointing when your second attempt cannot be retained. But we're all here to make sure that these articles stay on Wikipedia, and we're very glad that the cleanup effort has your mark all over the place. Trust me when I tell you that you're a rare exception rather than the norm. Most people ending up in your shoes just disappear, and too often, what remains from the cleanup bears no trace of the time they spent on Wikipedia anymore. So keep it up, and if we have to take other tough decisions on some articles, I hope that this barnstar will remind you that we value your work even in the case when we cannot retain your wording. MLauba (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...tum, ti tum, ti tum ti tum ti tum.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll second this Derek. I've only reviewed 20 or so articles you've worked on and it's obvious to me you've put a tremendous amount of effort into your editing. It was a better encyclopedia before the rest of us started removing and blanking. The problem is that it wasn't the encyclopedia we're allowed to have. I think there's as much of a failure on the part of the whole wiki project to not make the expectations clear as there is a failure on your part to not meet the expectations. Hopefully when this is all over, we may be able to discuss and gain some insight as to why this happens over and over, with many more editors than just yourself.


 * The fact that you're sticking in there, trying to respond to all the concerns being rained down on you, trying to fix your work when you could have just clicked on "Create an account" - I think speaks volumes for your character and dedication. No-one's having any fun here (which is too bad, wiki is supposed to be fun!) and I'm sure you least of all. But I'm glad to see you're sticking with it. Regards! Franamax (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Amen. :) And I'm sorry that I'm currently so caught up with various other CCIs...which proves that Franamax has a point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Bless you all, and thank you. I have cried tears (plenty) and sweated blood (actually none at all - it's impossible), and I know this is a long, long way from being finished. However, on a lighter note, here is some real copyvio - "I get knocked down, But I get up again, You're never gonna kick me down" - Chumbawamba - "Tubthumping" - (1997)


 * Don't tell anyone I sent you copyright, because I might almost get away with this one. Actually the song's bridge, for those who are unaware, (that's nearly all of you) goes - "He drinks a whisky drink, He drinks a vodka drink, He drinks a lager drink, He drinks a cider drink" - which might explain it a bit. Tomorrow's another day. Sleep well.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you missed the first acappella line: "We'll be singing; When we're winning, We'll be singing": that makes the whole thing a song of hope, perhaps, and a lesson to follow. I'd pitch in and help if I didn't have too much other stuff to do, and little resource to do it, but I do have a load of Record Collector magazines for the last 30 years and other stuff. Feel free to ask me. 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Regards. Rodhull andemu  01:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Derek R Bullamore! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 9 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Tessa Pollitt -
 * 2) Greg Kane -
 * 3) Anne-Marie Ruddock -
 * 4) Garry Roberts -
 * 5) David Hinds -
 * 6) Iain Harvie -
 * 7) Alan Rankine -
 * 8) Pete Wiggs -
 * 9) Les Chadwick -


 * All the above articles now have at least one reference in place, more usually two or three, which seems sufficient for what are mainly three sentence long, stub, articles. The unreferencedBLP tags have therefore been removed.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Willie Love
Hello! Your submission of Willie Love at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of Eddie Mapp at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattie Delaney
I was going to say "Do you know there's an article on her?" before I realised you'd just written it! I'd never heard of her before - thanks for that. Sorry if my comment seemed terse - even I am known to get tired and grumpy on occasions, but nothing personal! If there are any articles that need to be rewritten that you'd like me to have a go at, just let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's good. Well, you have your choice from ... The Rockin' Berries, Karl Denver, Carl Douglas, Julie Rogers (singer), The Tremeloes, Bern Elliott and the Fenmen. Pick one, or two, or even three; amend the 'you know where list' accordingly and away you go. Thanks and regards,
 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - I'll tackle Ketty Lester first. More interesting than I thought - shame we can't use the photo here... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you have done Miss Lester - bravo. Now, here is one for you (a non Wiki DYK). "Did you know that Ketty Lester and Robert "Squirrel" Lester were born on the same date - 16 August ?" That's when I wonder whether I may have wasted my 55 years on this planet !?! Anyhow, what's next ?  Ohh, another thought. I see all these images appearing on DYK, and wonder if Wiki Commons (or whatever it is called) may have photos for some of these 'pop' stars we keep editing.  I would not know where to start - would you ?


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was being distracted by Lincoln Mayorga and Margie Day - let me know what you think! It may be that WikiCommons does have photos of some of them, but usually only if they were taken by fans rather than as commercial photos - so, not necessarily of worthwhile quality.  I don't know what the rules are about deceased blues people I'm afraid.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cor, good work on those two articles. I've never heard of either of them, although Mayorga's connections (like The Piltdown Men) I do know. You must have spent a lot of time and effort finding references for both of them. I know the trouble I have chasing down citations for my blues boys and girls. I thought both articles very interesting, well researched and written. Well done indeed. Obviously Mayorga is a real musician's musician, and has adapted extremely well to changing circumstances and the passage of time. Good stuff - have you not considered DYK for either of them ?

I had a quick look at Wiki Commons but found it hard going, probably because I was feeling my way around. It is something I may return to. Now, do you have your detective hat on, because I might have something to interest you ? I did some work on "Gin House Blues" a little while ago, and noticed more recently that counter claims over authorship, two different songs / same title etc., have been added to both the article and discussion page. It is something I never seem to get round to having another look at; but I thought it might interest you. Also, I put Buster Pickens up for DYK today, but I think the article may be a little too short. If you get the chance, have a look and see if you could add another sentence or two - not an easy one, as my earlier comments allude.

I know the copyvio stuff will beckon again shortly. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - both Mayorga and Margie Day are in the DYK queue, so I will wait and see. It's always a thrill for me when some obscure musician from the 50s or 60s turns out to have a wider life, of which I was totally unaware - which in a way applies in both those cases.  I'll certainly look into "Gin House Blues" - my favourite version of that is by Nina Simone.  Did you notice my (not very) "original research" about "Little Red Rooster" by the way - I'm sure Willie Dixon got the idea from the Margie Day song, but I thought it best not to suggest that!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... just looked into "Gin House Blues" a bit - I feel some WP:OR coming on, and maybe an article on this guy - who seems to have been the original writer of the Nina Simone song... Verrry interesting.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly I do not know you very well. However, what little I gleaned about "Gin House Blues" a few weeks ago, and your general musical interests over several months of interaction, did seem to me to be 'hand in glove'. I guess I was right !  That will keep you going for a few days - I guessed there was much more to this song(s) / songwriter(s) than 'meets the eye'. I know your comment about "original research" is somewhat tongue in cheek, but (as here) 'sorting the wheat from the chaff' does not count !  If I can help, let me know.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What a memory I have ?!? I discover I wrote the original Wiki version of "Gin House Blues" some 15 months ago - that's why it is on my watchlist. Oh well, a hell of a lot has happened to me in the interim.  Anyhow, I vaguely remember I came at this song via the Amen Corner route, and did some digging about to create the original stub.  This has bugged me since you mentioned the Nina Simone version, and now I know why; because I have The Original Blues Album which contains the very track (amongst many others - including Memphis Slim's brilliant rendition of "How Long ?") Needless to say the album sleeve credits list Henderson and Troy as the songwriters of "Gin House Blues", with the additional notation of Carlin Music Corp.  How does a song get seemingly regularly mis-credited for around 85 years, with songwriters of a far lesser known song apparently pocketing the royalties ?  As an aside, I played the track tonight and went off to bed a very happy boy.  Mind you, that could have been the gin !!


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK
I suggested an alt. Sorry for stupidly forgetting what the reference said. Joe Chill (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The hook was accepted. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good - it is a fine article, and maybe I was being pedantic, but I just thought the hook did not look right as it was. All's well that end's well.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Son Bonds
Quite the unusual (and tragic) factoid; great job on the work! Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you - it is always nice to have encouragement from other editors. If you are interested in similar tragic tales, try Buster Pickens or Eddie Mapp.  Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Album sales in the 1960s
Hi Derek. There's a friendly discussion going on at Talk:The Incredible String Band about an uncited claim that the group had the fifth largest album sales for a band in the UK across the decade of the 1960s. It seems unlikely to me, but just about possible, for the reasons I mention on that page. I don't have any information on album charts or, more particularly, overall sales over a longer period. Can you shed any light on this? Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply on that talk page. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - but some of your comments were a bit harsh I thought! The info I got on Basket of Light came from here (in the para starting "Although Herb Alpert...")  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I appeared a bit haughty - but in my experience these discussions about record sales can drone on and on forever. With due respect you are getting your Pentangle's mixed up with your Incredible String Band's. Do not worry, it is not a criminal offence - yet ! Best wishes, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Pshaw! I know very well the diffs between the Pentangle and ISB, thank u very much! - I was responding to one of the other contributors!!  Way back in the 1960s, the ISB were one of the first bands I ever saw, btw.  Groovy, man!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * An ageing hippy - I should have guessed !?! LOL. Wishbone Ash popped my cherry, so to speak.  Must have been 1970, I think. Those were the days.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. Yes, "There's a ligh-t that shines on Persephone...". I was such a star in my little rural neighbourhood when I started playing people Just Testing. :) Franamax (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Persephone" from There's the Rub - aaahhh - I still own the original vinyl copy of that album (plus Wishbone Ash, Pilgrimage and Live Dates). Got to dig it out and play it now !

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Lindsay Thomas
Can you explain why you deleted my edit at Deaths in 2010 without explanation as though I were some sort of vandal. I think knowing Ms. Thomas's nationality is kind of important. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that I had ! According to the article's history page (going back to 29 January) my only recent edit removed a piece of vandalism relating to Pauly Fuemana. Have you confused me with someone else perhaps ?


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes you did; just check here. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This was only an hour or so ago ?! I have no recollection of this edit whatsoever. However, based on the evidence I am evidently guilty. My heartfelt apologies, but I truly have no knowledge of this action, nor any explanation as to why I would have done such a thing. I thought my only recent actions on this talk page related to an earlier discussion on 'Duplicate data'. Sorry,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just happened to notice this thread. I once inadvertently hit "rollback" on the wrong item on my watchlist, thus reverting something on a page other than the one I had intended. A mortifying mistake, but I know when it happened with me it was no malice intended. Maybe something like that happened here, Derek? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Um, maybe. But I do not remember even being on that page at that time, never mind anything else. It's a real mystery to me, and I have asked my copyvio correction buddy, User:Ghmyrtle, if he has experienced anything similar recently. I know almost irrefutable evidence points to me - I just can not explain it !
 * 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I did make a bad edit inadvertently, I think for the same reason as Moonriddengirl - it certainly wasn't what I intended. It can be an easy thing to do.  I just put it down to the ageing process...  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Angela Strehli's photo
You're welcome! I meant start a stub for her, but hadn't the time. I wikilinked Clifford Antone as in "Antone's" (which you can see in the background behind Angela-- the source of her first record label, and the name of the nightclub-- both named after him. He helped jumpstart several careers including that of Stevie Ray Vaughn and others- check out his page, too.. maybe the two can help each other with references, etc. I'm still trying to find photos of musicians. Some of the photographers I ask don't know me, and are leery about giving up their copyrights to use Creative Commons instead, so if that's the case, I try to leave their name under the photo if it's just a Stub or Start article, even though it isn't WP policy; but compared to unsourced articles, or tiny paragraphs, I don't see the harm until it reaches C level. I hope you don't mind.. I know it won't last very long, but it helps gain trust and thus, new photos coming after they see it's really a legit request.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's fine. I need to be wary of endorsing anything that is not Wiki policy, as I have been in enough trouble lately !  I do understand your point about trying to 'attract' more photographs - good luck with that.  I hope the Strehli article was OK.  From memory I seemed to have difficulty finding many sources.  Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blind John Davis
Hi Derek,

Just a courtesy note to let you know that the above had been started as a copyvio by a since-then vanished user. I've recreated a stub, reusing the lead sentence you had added last November, and salvaging the references you had found. Best, MLauba (talk) 11:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks; I'll have a go at expanding the article in due course. I'm working on a new article for Titus Turner at the present, hopefully a DYK contender. Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I somehow suspected you'd like working on such an article ;) The good thing is, you can get Blind John to DYK by 5 times expansion with ease, once you have time :) Cheers, looking forward to reading the expanded version. MLauba (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best - thanks for giving me the chance. As an aside, as I am typing this I have George Thorogood's "Bad to the Bone" playing on my PC. Each to their own of course, but I am a happy bunny.  Actually the "Bad to the Bone" article is without sources and full of POV.  No rest for the wicked, is there ?


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Alec Seward
It was my pleasure. Keep up the good work. --Bruce1eetalk 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Titus Turner
I'm afraid he's almost entirely passed me by. Joel Whitburn's Top R&B Singles just says (paraphrasing) - born 11 May 1933, Atlanta, died 13 Sept 1994; wrote "Hey Doll Baby" and "Sticks and Stones"; first recorded for Okeh in 1951. Only one R&B hit - "Return of Stagolee", King 5186, reached # 29 in April 1959 and was an answer song to Lloyd Price's "Stagger Lee". Interestingly, although that was not a Hot 100 hit, two of his other songs were - "We Told You Not To Marry", Glover 201, # 83 pop in late 1959, another answer song this time to Lloyd Price's "I'm Gonna Get Married"; and "Sound-Off", Jamie 1174, # 77 pop in early 1961, described by Whitburn (in Top Pop Singles 1955-2002) as "popular US Army marching drill chant, # 3 hit for Vaughn Monroe in 1951". But I expect you knew all that! I checked a couple of other books and found nothing at all. You might be able to scrape some more info from here or here - and you could watch this or (in a quite different vein) this! Sorry I can't help more - but new articles don't all have to be up to DYK standard of course! Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC) PS: Just found this -. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You little beauty. I sort of found evidence that his debut recording was not on Okeh in 1951 (despite Allmusic's claims). More original research from you, and then you point me at YouTube - as if I am not in enough trouble ! The chart info is more than useful; actually all of what you have posted fills in the jigsaw a bit.  The bits I can get from your links can help the potential article not being all Allmusic biased. I'll work on it again, and I think we can have a joint shot at DYK, but only if that is OK with you. Something along the lines of - 'despite writing multiple hits such as "Sticks and Stones", "Tell Me Why" and "Leave My Kitten Alone", Turner only recorded one album'. (maybe). More work needed.  Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you should ref YouTube - there's no harm in watching it though! Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know !! But fancy trying to get an innocent like me into trouble, as the actress said to the bishop.  Anyhow, the article is now up and running, so if you would care to have a look and see if you can enhance it.  Then, if you are happy and in agreement, I'll put it up for a joint effort DYK thingymebob.  Cheers,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what went wrong, but you were supposed to get joint composing credits for the Titus Turner article at DYK. I thought I had ensured you were jointly listed, but..... Sorry.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah... I did get a message about that, but thought it was a mistake - and there was another mistake anyway, as another Derek rather than you was initially being given the credit. Anyway, all sorted now - don't give a moment's thought to whether I should have been credited or not.  Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * But I did give it thought, and I thought that you should have got part credit. Too late now, but it's the thought that counts !?!  Hope you are well,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Feelgood
Well, it's on the band's own site, but I agree that a ref should be added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have now added ref and an early review. If you think the premier unbalances the article, or you think any of this beaches NPOV, please fell free to tone down, trim or replace. Theatrical release date and contemporary review could be added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually
I just correct the spelling of selected words.

Everybody needs a hobby :) EoGuy (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Denny Freeman
As long as he's notable there should be no problems. something lame from CBW 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  02:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This Mortal Coil
Could you please take a look at Talk:This_Mortal_Coil? You had commented a year ago about the POV of the article; I have followed up from another comment on the talk page and discovered that the greater part of the article had been cut-and-pasted from allmusic back in 2006. I'll look into it more when I have the time, but a second set of eyes would be appreciated -- Foetusized (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I totally agree with you. This Mortal Coil is not my specialist subject, but clearly considerable work is needed to avoid the blatant  plagiarism / copyright violation.  I am busy elsewhere at present, but am willing to review another's work on this, if that helps.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed this here and addressed the problem with my typical level of sensitivity and skill (cue sound of chainsaw being started up). The material is still in history, but no longer "made available for public display", which is my (non-)standard approach for web-available copyvios. I do hope someone rewrites it, I recognized all the names from the past - but after all, if someone wants to look at the text that was there, they just have to go to the site where the real author wrote it and read there. Franamax (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Johnnie Bassett
A tag has been placed on Johnnie Bassett requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  ttonyb (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked this over and asked Orangemike to comment on how this was too close of a paraphrase. It looked OK to me and I'm not exactly wishy-washy on this stuff. ;) Franamax (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I did try to rephrase the piece as far as I could. I do feel that sometimes phrases / sentences are difficult to radically alter (hence my comments on the article's talk page). Anyhow, I await developments, but I appreciate your efforts on my behalf.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Orangemike is suggesting restoring it into your user space. I can do that for you if you want, maybe there is something you can tweak or incorporate more from the other source. Then you could ask for an opinion at the WP:FEED desk or from others of the various copy-sharks who cruise these waters. :) It does seem difficult to find creative ways to say "played with X, played with Y, played with Z" but we should be able to find some way to ensure it's acceptable. Franamax (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that will be acceptable to me.


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and at User:Derek R Bullamore/Johnnie Bassett. Franamax (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David T. Walker
Greetings Derek R Bullamore. Could you pop in at David T. Walker and see what you can do to wikify it? Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a little bit - added a reference or two and tidied up some wording and wikilinks. I hope this helps. Frankly, to me, putting an article up for deletion more than three and a half years after its creation seems nonsensical. If Wikipedia has taken this long to question the inclusion, then the quality of its own policing methods are considerably more in doubt than any one article.  Walker's contributions towards other's work, and his own discography, is more than enough to make him notable.  But what do I know - I exist in the underworld, waiting for another administrator to tell me off.  Anyway, you are in my good books because I am presently creating an article for Eddie "Guitar" Burns, who worked with Bob Hall. Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings Derek R Bullamore - thanks for that. I, too, spend half my time here getting told off by admins - well, actually, wannabes - (for differences of opinion as to what constitutes "patent nonsense" whenever I propose some really weird stuff for speedy deletion - and here we are are, wasting valuable time defending an article on a notable session musician. So it goes... Anyways, IOU1. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Back in rotation
Hi, Derek. Just wanted to let you know that the CCI is back up in my rotation (my rotation is slow these days, with 24 open CCIs). You probably would notice anyway, but with such gaps in action I thought it would be good to just give you a heads up. :) Earlier contributions to Chi-lites were fine, but I'm afraid that in March 2009,, it hit too close to AMG. I have reverted to the version before that. This section is almost completed, though, and it looks like a good bit of the first page - likely to be the more challenging cleanup - is done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been able to review Slade fairly thoroughly, now that I have personal copies of several of the books (I like music as well, so I am happy to own them). There are some problems with the text of Great Rock Discography. I don't think they're sufficient to require reverting the article, though, because for the most part I think that this material is thoroughly rewritten. There's just one paragraph in which I find copyright concerns. Please rewrite passages in the article that follow too closely. For examples:
 * "Their official debut single, "You Better Run"...flopped in late 1966, and they retired from studio activity" (article); "Their official debut 45, "You Better Run"...flopped late in '66, the group retiring from studio activity" (book)
 * "A belated debut album, Beginnings sold poorly" (article); "A belated debut album, 'BEGINNINGS', sold poorly" (book)
 * "Their appropriately titled first album as Slade, Play It Loud, on Polydor, released in November 1970 failed to translate into sales." (article); "SLADE'S appropriately titled first album, 'PLAY IT LOUD' (on Polydor), failed to translate into sales" (book)
 * There may be others in the article that I have not identified. Since problems have been identified in this passage but not removed, it's pretty high priority to get it rewritten. Given your track record, I feel pretty confident that you'll take care of it quickly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now done. Thanks,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm rotating out again.:) There are a couple of more articles in need of attention, but the good news is that we've collapsed two sections. Nothing is urgent, because I've either reverted or removed/rewritten concerns. Nothing is blanked and put on the block at CP, so you can address them at your leisure. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Drayton (athlete)
Oops, thanks for adding the nationality on Drayton. I stared at that for about a minute before I hit the "save page" button trying to figure out what I had left out. You'd think that someone named "Canadian" Paul and who has edited the "Deaths in..." pages more than any other would have noticed that eh? It's just not my day today... Cheers, CP 01:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I met a couple of Canadians on holiday in Thailand a few years ago. They were really lovely, and massively disparaging of the Yanks, as you would expect. I hoped my meagre anti-American 'We rule the world, and is there anyone else out there anyway' diatribe, might have found the mark. However, what happens, I hit a Canadian. Bollocks.  Well done on beating the bastards in that Olympic ice hockey type thing.  As you can tell, it's not my day either.  Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick Moss
Hi Derek, as long as your article has more than just the words "A thoroughly nice chap." like the previous version did, I'm sure you will have no problem creating the article. :) Franamax (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick response; I'll try my best to improve on the previous version !


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is now available in glowing technicolor at Nick Moss. Thanks again,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice work, even though you don't say whether he was thoroughly nice or just a little bit nice. :)
 * BTW the US played an incredible game and stopped all our hearts with 24 seconds left. I was able to take the 15-minute walk into downtown afterward, along with what seemed like at least half of Vancouver. What a great party! My hands still hurt a bit from exchanging so many high-fives. :) Franamax (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, he is more than just a tad nice enough to me for keeping the traditional blues alive. Of course, I do not have a source ! The hockey thing must have been quite an event. I was there when my favourites, Hull Kingston Rovers, beat bitter local rivals Hull F.C. in the 1980 final of the Rugby League Challenge Cup.  An event still talked about in these parts all those years on; mainly by me.  Conversely, my wife got hit on the head with the puck at a Humberside Seahawks match a long time ago.  She got to keep the puck, but notably the ice arena still has most of her brains. Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Beki Bondage
Ta for that, have replied on my own page - knocking three years (or more?) off one's age might seem harmless on a fansite, but it ain't encyclopaedic.... Little grape (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

7SeriesBOT
I'll drop a note on 7SeriesBOT's page later tonight, though I see he has rejected the option of not blanking the page once. To be truthful, now that I understand what's happening, I'm not that exercised by it; but to the extent it is confusing others, perhaps it is better that it stops.

I've not ever encountered a disappearing edit summary box. That's very odd indeed. No good suggestions beyond try changing something - e.g. your browser of choice - to see if that has an effect. As to the other issues ... I'm still working on them, but I appreciate very your intention to vote my way should I make significant progress. I feel quite spurred on; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note dropped. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Much obliged for your swift and sympathetic actions. Actually, I just found the missing link between apes and humans when I looked in the mirror this morning. Regards,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Need Your Love So Bad
Definitely written by Mertis John Jr., brother of Little Willie John and Mable John. As well as Discogs, Allmusic seems to have it right here, and there is more information here (and if Richard Tapp of the inestimable Juke Blues magazine is not a reliable source then I don't know who is); here (which is a blog, I know, but a pretty well-informed one); and here. I also have an Irma Thomas compilation where it is credited as M. John. It was first recorded by Little Willie - I haven't found a label shot, but it was quite likely originally just written down as (John). That would have led people to assume that Little Willie actually wrote it - as is stated wrongly on this Fleetwood Mac album. But I'm sure it was Mertis - of whom I know nothing, beyond what is at Discogs! Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: There is at least one redlink above that I need someone needs to change to blue...... ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Hope I'm not treading on your toes, but I've had a look at Little Willie John and there seem to be some songs referenced in the text as "hits" which, looking at the chart placings, were not "hits" at all. Do you want to check them out? Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording a bit to differentiate between 'hits' and recordings'. Thanks for that. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, many thanks for your efforts on this - I thought you might come up trumps. Secondly, I mischievously pondered whether to go through all the existing Wiki articles quoting this song, and annoy the hell out of editors by changing every "I Need Your Love So Bad" entry to the 'correct' title, and also amending the frequently misquoted songwriting credits. Thereby seeing how long it took before User:Terribly Irate reverted something.  However, sense prevailed (I must be getting old), and I think I had better concentrate on starting to write the song's article.  Yes I did get the hint, despite vowing to myself a long time ago that I would not get involved in editing/creating 'song' articles.  Such a great song though - the version by Fleetwood Mac (when they were Fleetwood Mac, not that 1980s American middle of the road hybrid) was everything a little 45rpm should be.


 * On a separate note, I will revisit Little Willie. I got the smell that the article was a little peacocky when I edited it earlier, but did not pursue the thought process far enough.


 * Thirdly, maybe, that leaves two things - Juke Blues about which I know nothing (rather like you and me on Mertis John); and Roscoe Shelton (who I was thinking about possibly having a go at composing an article in the next few days). Never pays to put your foot in the water - there is crabs about ! Best wishes,


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I may give Juke Blues a go - I'm a subscriber, but there is very little info on the magazine itself on the net. Maybe I'll ask the editor!  Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done Juke Blues - too short for DYK this time (and I did ask the editor!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Greetings Folks - sorry I'm not able to give anything but moral support on this one. Re. Discogs, I know it's not very popular here at Wikipedia, but I actually find it correct* more often than allmusic, which has always been pretty fast & loose with the facts. *As in the odd fact that I have first-hand knowledge about. Good luck! --Technopat (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. So I still owe you one... --Technopat (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Need Your Love So Bad" article is now done. Please feel free to improve. I feel a DYK nomination coming on ! Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I can see people coming along and changing it, not knowing the facts. I agree that to perpetuate the error is unhelpful... how about putting the correct composer in the track listing, as you have done, and put a note underneath to the effect of "On the album, Track X was incorrectly credited to Little Willie John", perhaps with a cite to the correct composer? Hopefully then people would see that and accept it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Derek, thanks for your comment on my talk page (though I'm really not bothered one way or the other!) The discussion at WT:SONGS is interesting - there may need to be a few tweaks needed in the article as to what is said about the writing credits - I'll take another look at it in a couple of days.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you'll have noticed, there's been a lot of editing of your article in the last couple of days, which has cut down its length somewhat. Do you think you should withdraw it from DYK on this occasion?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have already written on the DYK page that I would like it to be withdrawn. My view is that some of the recent editing has macheted its way through the heart of the article - I suppose, just one of the perils of having an open editing policy.  Actually, you may remember me stating that it was against my better judgement creating 'song' articles in the first place.  Funnily enough, for a 55 year old song that has seen little Wiki action to this point, when the page is created all and sundry want a piece of the action. "Why is there not a page on Mertis John" etc.  Probably because some editors would rather pull other's work apart, rather than create something themselves.  What the hell, after all the copyvio stuff that could have swamped me, I just put it down to experience, dust myself down, and move on.


 * A couple of days ago my thought was to go through all the various Wiki articles that, in one way or another, included "Need Your Love So Bad" and try to improve/enhance/incorporate/reword. I can tell you, I will not be bothering and I suspect neither will you. However, as ever, thanks for your efforts on my behalf.
 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, personally I think the info (such as it is) on Mertis John would fit much better in the NYLSB article than in a standalone one, which I think would be barely justifiable in notability terms - but there are editors who disagree with that view, and frankly I'm not going to get into a tedious argument with relatively inexperienced single-issue editors who think they know best and quote "rules" at me. These things happen, as we know, I'm afraid. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't get disheartened; online sources, in my view, are rarely as good as contemporary ones, and if I still had my paper collections of Melody Maker and New Musical Express from the 60s, I wouldn't place much hope in them getting it right either. However, I still have many issues of Record Collector magazine, but not indexed, so it's a trial going through them all. Let's just say that I don't think you should give up. Cheers. Rodhull  andemu  01:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Diamonds
Thanks, good point, I have taken the explanation out. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)