User talk:Brieflysentient

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Vagrants, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: The Vagrants was changed by Brieflysentient (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.9627 on 2011-08-05T17:26:41+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this one I've been breeding for a while. OK - bots I like. They tidy up, and one day, hopefully before I snuff it, they'll help clean up while being cute running round the floor. In the meantime - ClueBot NG (who looks in my head to be a bit tattoed and has trouble walking in a non-simian way at times) says it ""produces very few false positives" but seems to, on occasion, happily just wander about picking up loads of clearly relevant stuff and reverting it. Oh Yeah, with A WARNING, like that makes it more acceptable or, more correct, right. Now I'm all for auto-cleanups, but something that looks like it just picks up major rewrites for a good reason and nukes them at random, instead of a nice little letter saying 'hey, I'm just doing a job here, and I've come across something that looks a little like you've been walking your dog on someone else's lawn, not like I'm accusing you of trespass or anything, hut can we just have a teensy look back and either get the pooper scooper out or explain that actually the fertiliser is lovely for the grass and thank you very much'. And I'd like a bit of interaction before a complete wipeout of correct information, so it can be discussed in a nice, cup of tea type, human way (oh dear - there's the problem). Any response - nope I doubt it. Sometimes notacluebot needs a re-wire :-)) Brieflysentient (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fever Tree

Hi. Thank you for helping out on the Fever Tree article. If you can, could you add Lillian Roxon's book as a ref to the Shelley Fabares articles: Shelley!, Johnny Angel, The Things We Did Last Summer, Johnny Loves Me. Caden ^cool 21:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and thanks

For the work you're doing, adding references to the pages of Pete Brown, Graham Bond, Arthur Brown and others. Mark in wiki (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin

If Larkin deliberately seeds his work with misinformation as copyright traps, then I strongly recommend you avoid using it as a source - cf. Jay Robert Nash and the mess that created. DS (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Apologies for not knowing what the ref on Jay Robert Nash is about, but thanks for the concern. As it happens, after nearly 40 years in the music industry and having written innumerable articles and obituaries, a number of ghost books and all sorts of other stuff, resources amounting to some 30,000 magazines and books and clippings and bits and bobs, and an anally retentive; I'm happy to take on such a thing with the knowledge that I'm not going to get caught out in a hurry (not that I blame Larkin - it must be frustrating to achieve something as momentuous as the encyc. and have it ripped off wholesale). Want a list of most of the mouse-traps? Some are funny, most are erudite.

I add what I know is right and appears relevant, I check what I'm not sure about, and I double check, omit and leave until later what's not verifiable - or if it was in there before, is encyclopaedic and verifiable but not until some other reference is added, then I'll leave it in with a 'cite needed tag' until later, and add it to an ever-growing spreadsheet for later (hence why Lillian Roxon's book got largely ignored when I worked through it - great fun, a perfect snapshot of the era, but personal and erratic (in a lovely way) instead of encyclopaedic.

Far too many music entries are random, fan-puff or irrelevant not to take the risk and add good refs such as Larkin to strengthen the article. And as for strength of refs - I could list hundreds (literally) that are weak as paper bags (try Richard Newman's 'John Mayall, Bluesbreaker' as a great example of a personal view of a sadly under-referenced period of British music that you really couldn't quote most of the time as it's soooo biased).

Thankfully, in most cases, musicians entries are written by fans or ex-band members with a nostalgic eye, not copyright fiends and psychos. I'm carefully avoiding the ones with an agenda (The Bachelor's, anyone?) or better known artists where someone else ought to be able to raise a finger and deal with it without much effort (mainly US artists so far - we're a much smaller country). I'm not her to update Beatles entries, or Alice Cooper. Anyone can do that. What's in danger of disappearing is the world of Arthur Brown, Graham Bond, Bob Calvert, Pink Fairies, many 50s artists and minor 60s characters who sparked so much etc etc - the not so little people who drift in history because the bigger artists and their fans shout louder. They have their place.

I'll remain vigilant.

Ta ... Brieflysentient (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with JRN is that not only did he seed his works with disinformation as copyright traps, he was litigious (one hopes that Larkin is more reasonable). Everything that cited his books had to come down immediately: longer articles were pruned, and shorter articles were deleted in toto. Many people who had contributed to such articles were quite upset, but the issue was explained and resolved, and the majority of the articles have since been re-created using more reliable sources (minus the ones that turned out to be fraudulent). If you're confident that you can avoid another such imbroglio -- and from your self-description (and your awareness that the disinformation even exists), I'd say you have every right to be -- then go ahead. DS (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

I've made a couple of reverts to edits of yours that can be classified as over-tagging. If the article is tagged as needing citations, there is no need to add multiple tags thereafter. Over-tagging disrupts the flow of an article, affects readability and can be understood by some Wikipedians to be disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Hohenloh⁺ 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Sometimes it's like being in a very dark room with eyes closed and hands tied behind the back. I'll have a look at the changes you've made and follow the example from here-on in. I've found it a difficult area, and didn't feel comfortable with the number I was putting in (as you say, it disrupts the flow). But then it's hard to balance whether to only tag a few things that need citations or tag the lot. I'll go minimalist, wouldn't want to be accused of vandalism!

Thanks. Brieflysentient (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike d'Abo

I think you should have mentioned first of all on the talk page why the article needed a re-write, and that you were going to do it. I have already mentioned the over-tagging, which I feel makes a mess of the sections where it has been inserted, and really puts one off reading further. Otherwise, I admire your enthusiasm. Hohenloh⁺ 10:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, if I'd read on I could have done two answers in one. Normally on a big rewrite I'd give plrenty of time for comment first (you might want to check Talk:Johnny Cymbal for an example, and feedback on that one would be much appreciated). The d'Abo kinda ran away from me, and I lost the bigger picture, (though I don't think it was a bad job really). I'm just astounded how many articles I come across have been left to wither away incomplete or have been added to and added to and now resemble soup; or have critical info missing while deep in trivia, or quite simply don't have any chronology to them, or (I'll shut up now) ...

However, I'm now not clear whether the problem is the just citations or the re-write. As the change in info was

* a remove of trivia

* removal of an over-emphasis (and almost an advert) for radio programmes, which is not really his notability

* removal of a bad repetition that should have been edited out before

* putting things in a chronological order instead of a higgeldy-piggeldy history

would it not have been better to remove the over-cite problem and leave the text? Or is the text also contentious? I could happily explain why all the changes were made on the talk page, but I would have thought most of them were self-explanatory, and correct. If I've got it wrong, and you have the time, I'd appreciate the reasoning, so I can avoid doing it again. Especially useful as it's early days.

Thanks Brieflysentient (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juke Box Jury

Oi'll give it foive! (oops, wrong programme.....) Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions of "Anette Andre" on the JBJ page. I don't want to change this in case your source uses this spelling but shouldn't this be Annette Andre (from whom a wikipedia entry exists)? Fitzsimons (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]