Talk:Johnny Young

message: As a 2010 ARIA Hall of Fame inductee (recently announced), Johnny Young deserve a B-class article (or better). Consequently Dan arndt has started improving this article, I'm going to join in, and the overall job should take about a week. Interim edits may look incomplete or disorganised, other editors are also welcome to join in.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my bit and believe its now up to B-class.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed major edits

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Johnny Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for www.whammo.com.au/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101030011024/http://www.themusicnetwork.com:80/music-news/industry/2010/10/28/aria-hall-of-fame-celebrates-musics-loved-ones/ to http://www.themusicnetwork.com/music-news/industry/2010/10/28/aria-hall-of-fame-celebrates-musics-loved-ones/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Johnny Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whammo.com.au/encyclopedia.asp?articleid=804
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YiGE4tE6?url=http://erl.canberra.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-AUC20050509.095456/public/02whole.pdf to http://erl.canberra.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-AUC20050509.095456/public/02whole.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329190636/http://www.poparchives.com.au/gosetcharts/1967/19671004.html to http://www.poparchives.com.au/gosetcharts/1967/19671004.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Recently two edits by  (see here) removed content, which the user claimed as being copy violations. Note that much of the material in the Lead was removed leaving behind a short, single sentence. This makes the Lead uninformative and a poor summary of the rest of the article's content. Also removed was substantial content from the main text and ref tabs (leaving behind unused refs) this has caused unnecessary disruption to the article.
I contend that the material removed was not copy violation by WP. The user cites Earwig's Copyvio Detector (EPD) to justify the removals. EPD does not determine the direction of any copy violations nor does it determine whether material is available via creative commons licensing.
Consider:
#EPD's highest reading (see here) is 30.6%, which is for material from Duncan Kimball's article, "Johnny Young", at his Milesago website. EPD states that "Violation Unlikely". In the WP article, this website, and Kimball, is fully acknowledged at ref tab [7]. Furthermore, Kimball has generously made his material at that site available via a creative commons licence (see his "Main Menu"). Some material cited to Kimball was removed. In what way is its usage at WP a copy violation?
##I invite the site's editor and chief author, Duncan Kimball , to comment if he wishes to clarify the situation.
#The 2nd highest reading (see here) is 26.5%, "Violation Unlikely". In the WP article a direct quote is cited to Martin Clarke at ref tab [8]. This material was not removed.
#The 3rd highest reading (see here) is 12.3%, "Violation Unlikely". All content from Ian McFarlane's entry on "Johnny Young" is duly acknowledged at ref tab [4]. This is not copy violation as the reliable source is cited correctly and whole slabs of material from the site are not being used.
#The 4th highest reading (see here) is 4.8% "Violation Unlikely". A sentence fragment for a direct quote, which is duly acknowledged by ref tab [14] is not copy violation.
#The 5th highest reading (see here) is 1.0% "Violation Unlikely". The title of a documentary which is acknowledge by ref tab [13], this is not copy violation.
Some removed material was supported by reliable in-line citations. There is no copy violation in these.
I ask User:TheMagnificentist to justify the removal of the content from this article under the claim of copy violation when I dispute this claim. I am going to return that material to the article and request that it remain until such justification is given.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected copy violations? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnny Young. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015024603/http://www.whiteroom.com.au/howlspace/whoswho/aboutww.htm to http://www.whiteroom.com.au/howlspace/whoswho/aboutww.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://erl.canberra.edu.au/uploads/approved/adt-AUC20050509.095456/public/02whole.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On 7 October 2021,  made significant changes to this article. The differences are available here. User:1.43.15.97 did not provide any edit summary nor discuss the changes on this page. Consequently they were reverted per WP:BLP. Not only was content disrupted but also its display. According to WP:MOSLEAD, the Lead section of an article of this size should have 3 or 4 ¶¶ and provide content with relative emphasis and suitable readability.
Two days later, User:1.43.15.97 reverted the article, (see here) with an edit summary, "Undid revision 1048790638 by Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) I see he need a reference for th email implement, but he is known as John Young nowadays." Soon after they added new content to the Lead, (see here). Once again I reverted both of these changes, the latter content has a place in the main text under Later years, but its relevance to the artist's career is not sufficient to be placed in the Lead. I dispute the changes made by User1.43.15.97 and ask them to discuss their proposed changes here, in an attempt to reach a consensus.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2021 reversions