Talk:Tony Hatch

Birthdate

Note: A web search for Hatch's birthdate gives the date 30 June, but sources differ giving the year as 1939 or 1940. Does anyone have clues or info on which date is more likely or has better evidence? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 16:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is your source for June 30? I have found three on-line bios, one of which states 1939, but no specific date; the other two, including Hatch's official website, list no birthdate at all. 1939 seems likely, as that would put him at 16 when he left school in 1955. 64.12.117.13 23:37, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The imdb is one of a number of web sites listing 30 June. I did web searches for ["Tony Hatch" born] and ["Tony Hatch" birthday], and found various relevent results (along with the not strictly relevent hits, of course). Those that gave a day gave June 30th, but did not all agree on the year. A web search for ["Tony Hatch" 1939] and ["Tony Hatch" 1940] will show some other relevant results. -- Infrogmation 17:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anthony Peter Hatch, the elder child of Cyril and Eileen Hatch, was born in 1939 not 1940. A reliable source is the General Register Office index of births. This can be inspected at the Family Records Centre or online at some genealogy websites. Tony's birth was registered in the third quarter of 1939. The index entry on page 85 includes the correct maiden name of his mother. Records for 1940 have no similar entry so there is no ambiguity.

I hope the text will be updated and perhaps replaced with "1939, sometimes incorrectly quoted as 1940." Otherwise we could miss future landmark birthdays of this remarkable musician. Argon. Argoniser 15:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC) [Insertion in my contribution removed. Argon] Argoniser (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Old talk for version listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems

Note: User:SFTVLGUY2 reverted from the copyright violation notice with the comment "Revert to original; no copywright infringement, as I authored source article!". The source artice] credits it to "by Mick Patrick". The Spectropop front page states "Spectropop text contents & copy; copyright Spectropop unless stated otherwise. All rights in and to the contents of these documents, including each element embodied therein, is subject to copyright protection under international copyright law. Any use, reuse, reproduction and/or adaptation without written permission of the owners is a violation of copyright law and is strictly prohibited. All rights reserved."

SFTVLGUY2, could you please clarify the situation? Are you "Mick Patrick"? Do you have written permission from the Spectropop copyright holders to release this text under GFDL? -- Infrogmation 19:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wrote this article for a now defunct website about British pop music several years ago, and until the Tony Hatch entry was deleted due to possible copywright infringement, I had no idea it had been appropriated by Spectropop - and published with a different by-line and most definitely without my permission! I have contact Spectropop but not surprisingly have yet to receive a response. No matter what the Spectropop front page states, they have no legal right to my writing. Just because a website declares "all rights reserved" doesn't mean they actually have those "rights" in the first place. This, however, is the problem with "copyright law" where the Internet is involved - how does one enforce it? If so inclined, how does one take legal action? The fact is, I am NOT Mick Patrick, but neither is Mick Patrick the author of MY article, and I do not need written permission to use my own text as I see fit! If Wikipedia chooses not to use it, that's your decision, but you will be allowing yourselves to be ruled by "pirates" who are hiding behind a sham declaration. TOM 13:49, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting situation! Hm, for help with legal problems, perhaps you could ask at the Wikipedia:Reference desk or the Village Pump? Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that you own the copyright and the website which claims to have it does not? I fear you've made some possibly dubious assertions as to copyright status on Wikipedia in the past, so some evidence would help-- a screenshot or cache of the defunct website where this first appeared? What was its name? Had you been aware that Specropop was violating your copyright and that your article was on the web credited to someone else before the copyvio notice went up here? Would you like some other folks to email or write to Spectropop? I'd be willing to email them asking about the source of their article if you think that might help. Pondering, -- Infrogmation 19:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You persist in accusing me of making "possibly dubious assertions as to copyright status on Wikipedia in the past," even after I have explained that my errors were made as a newcomer and not a malicious vandal. I wrote the Tony Hatch article at least three years ago for a website called BritPopStarz, which as I said is now defunct (and has been for at least a year, if I recall correctly). I had kept a copy in my files. I also clearly stated that I had no idea it had been appropriated by Spectropop until the copyvio notice was placed here, so why are you asking me again??? You can have the Pope contact Spectropop for all I care, since I doubt they're going to admit to copyright infringement. If they had any scruples, they wouldn't have stolen my work in the first place. As I said previously, just because it's on their site doesn't mean they were authorized to put it there - by me, at least. Who knows who this "Mick Patrick" is or what he told them regarding authorship. Perhaps Spectropop innocently accepted it as original from him. Is he going to admit to them he stole it from another source? Not likely. All I know is the work is mine. If you want it, fine - if not, I will put an end to my contributions to Wikipedia, since I don't need to spend long hours researching and writing only to be accused falsely of plagiarism for my efforts. Thank you. TOM 20:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I commented on your presumed newcomer mistakes on your talk page. Back to the matter at hand, if I can do something to be of assistance in establishing that it is the Spectropop page which is in error in asserting copyright over the text rather than you, I'll be glad to lend a hand. -- Infrogmation 22:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article structure

I feel the article needs to be split into different section so it is easier to read. It looks terrible at the moment. - Erebus555 17:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, tried to do that. I did it in a way that required almost no re-writing on my part, and the relocation of only one small paragraph. That way, I did not really change the article (which is on a subject others know far more about than I), but simply made it easier to "leaf through". Only sore spot right now is that I lack the necessary imagination to give the sections I've created meaningful and useful titles. The titles I've chosen are only to be understood as "placeholders" for better titles, which I hope will be found by someone else, soon. Otto von B (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem

In this edit, material was introduced to this article from [1]. (See, for example, the material on David Bowie.) Other material added by this contributor may also be unusable (see CCI). While the article has been subsequently edited, unfortunately the material was not removed but incorporated into subsequent edits, and it remains an unauthorized derivative of that work. It either needs to be completely rewritten or restored to the version prior to the copyvio. I've blanked the article to give interested contributors an opportunity to determine how best this should be resolved. It will be revisited by an administrator after about a week. If a new version is not presented, restoration to earlier is likely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we just revert now, for readers' sake, and make other changes as appropriate? The Hatch article gets over 1800 hits in a typical month,[2] and Hatch himself hasn't done anything to merit being associated with wrongdoing. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I've restored it to the last clean. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blessings upon you. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Push a Little Button

Someone has created a redirect (Push a Little Button) which points here. But this article fails to mention the song. JonH (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparison with Simon Cowell

Could it go in the article that a television programme once mentioned that when he was on New Faces, he was the Simon Cowell of his day - another scary person on television? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Redirection

Why, when I click on hyperlink 'Fred Nightingale' in article Sugar_and_Spice_(The_Searchers_song), I'm redirected to the present article?

At the risk of being obvious:

Put standard Wiki note 'You have been redirected to this article' at the top of the page, stating in that statement the reason for the redirection.

I don't doubt that the reason is legitimate, and perhaps it is made clear in the article below. But I don't have the patience to pore thru the article empirically to find it.

Cordially,

Jimlue (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)