I agree with your edit of the page, the list was long and unnecessary at this point. At the time that I created and regularly updated the article, the list was needed in order to defend it from speedy deletion. kc12286 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)kc12286[reply]
Very true, pics are definitely needed. They're pretty hard to come by. Since it's no longer under its "original" name. And most pictures you find on the web aren't fair use. kc12286 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)kc12286[reply]
Sorry, I realy don't know how to use the message boards, but I can't find my reference on Irving Plaza, and I made a mistake on it, so it may be a good idea to leave it out--Gustavelifting (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again I am unsure how to handle the message thing, but I think you shoult know that Irving Hall is mentioned in the movie Newsies, which is about the newsboys strike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncleal923 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Harry Goodwin
On June 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harry Goodwin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I'm sorry to bother you with this kind of crap, since I realise that you have only recently become involved with the ongoing series of disruptive edits by QueryOne, but I'm obliged to notify you that I've mentioned your user name on the Administraor's noticeboard. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Thanks for the message of support. I'm glad it's not just me. I'm finding the whole sorry affair extremely draining and annoying. I've been a regular contributor on Wikipedia for 16 months now and up until very recently, I'd only ever encountered editors who were polite, friendly, and eager to communicate and reach consensus over editing disagreements. Why can't all folks be like that? Is it really so hard? My recent clashes with Jetblack500 (talk·contribs) are doubly annoying because I (and several other Wikipedians) have only recently endured similar trouble with QueryOne (talk·contribs) (see my earlier message to you above). Actually, there's a funny coincidence there...JetBlack500 and QueryOne both created Wiki accounts within five days of each other and both seem hell bent on making pedantic and disruptive edits to The Left Banke and its related articles. Very strange, but I'm sure there's nothing sinister in that. Anyway, thanks again for your comments. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the 70s I used to have a bit of paper I'd found with something called the Mazdaznan Code. It set out a few rules for a healthy & happy life. As well as some dietary tips etc it suggested that one never EVER get involved in litigation of any kind. Good advice! JetBlack500's manically defended trite copy-edits are just not worth fighting over, altho one can't help getting a grin over the apoplexy of it all. I think one has to extend that she (and I am just intuiting it is a she) is nevertheless editing in good faith. As Plato reputedly said "Be kind to those you meet, for everyone is having a hard struggle". One LB-related article on my todo list you might like to look at is Alan Merrill. Needs inline citations, mostly to Merrill's website, adding. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words, indeed. Funny that you assumed that this user is a she, whereas I automatically assumed they were male. Ah well, one of us is definitely right! ;-) --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, Jetblack500 has transcluded our discussion about the origin of The Left Banke on his talk page to Talk:The Left Banke to generate debate between other editors. Since you're mentioned there, I thought that you should know incase you want to add your tupence worth. He's also deleted the entire discussion from his talk page which seems like bad form to me. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"I've had enough of this issue though, so I'm going to let it go" - While not conceding the point, an admission of defeat. Plus a potential snooker with the "influenced by" misapprehension. Congratulations! Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually see where Jetblack500 said "I've had enough of this issue though, so I'm going to let it go" but regardless, if he's happy to leave it as it is, so much the better. The "influenced by" misapprehension is really worrying to my mind...I really do suspect that this mistake of his/hers may've been the root cause of all this conflict—which is just really stupid. Anyway, thanks for your support. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...on using wikis to create digital resources for New York City's 350 neighborhoods" is a great topic, and I will attend to learn how to apply your ideas to Philadelphia, but it deserves more than 5 minutes. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the Punk Rock Records article. Basically I just stubifyed it and removed blatant copy vio and COI material. There was drama concerning the images in those articles which I guess is taken care of now. SQGibbon (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reversion of an IP edit was on the grounds the article has been subject of vandalisim on previous occasions by IP edits.
I feel that the sudden insertion of such an edit by an IP address, that hasnt much of a history, was just such, and was therfore reverted. Furthermore, placing of such tags. without any effort to correct such, to me, is a example of a major fault of Wikipedia. --Keith08:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tags are nevertheless valid. That they were made by an anon IP is not grounds to remove them. Your feelings notwithstanding. They could be combined in to one multiple tag. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.
This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!
An anonymous editor has added details of Glen's death on December 17. It is also reported on a few discussion forums, but I can see no reliable source at present. Have you heard anything?--Michig (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only just gathered he was ill via Susan Cadogan. I'm regretting now that I didn't take the time to shoot a video interview with him. I did shoot what was very likely his last ever live appearance, at the Knitting Factory on May 1 2010. I'm very proud of this clip I shot of him. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and, I do see an inaccuracy in that Gleaner article - they say he played on 'Return of Django'. I've made a comment, let's see if they let it thru. Wwwhatsup (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After my comment was posted on the Gleaner article I've been contacted by Glen's biographer Elizabeth Barraclough to say that the information is incorrect, i.e. Adams did play on the records of both Return of Django and Live Injection. I'm going to leave a comment on Talk:The Upsetters to that effect. If the info is in dispute, and its only sourced to discogs.com it should be modified or removed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Warlocks 9.30.07-151-BW.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Warlocks 9.30.07-151-BW.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)19:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to dig through old archives, but I'll try and dig up the authorizing email, which I note is dated 11-07-2007. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited to the New York Wiknic!
You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.
Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
File permission problem with File:631-04susan14.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:631-04susan14.jpg, which you've sourced to video still from PUNKCAST#631. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)21:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:83701botw15.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:83701botw15.jpg, which you've sourced to video still from PUNKCAST#837. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk)21:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. It is the same venue, I have reverted your edits. Do not do this again without discussing it on the article talk page, as the reliable sources in the Irving Plaza article indicate that you are wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make that move again unless you have a reliable source that shows that there were two different venues. So far, there is not one, just someone's memory, which is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was established via the talk page months ago. Where have you been? Please find refs to back up your assertion before reverting or redirecting. Just look at the pictures. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the photos actually "established" that, so you'll have to forgive me for only seeing it at the last moment. I've undone my reverts, and restored the pages to the conditions I've found them in. One thing you've neglected to do is post a "copied" template to indicate that material was copied from one article to another. I'll do that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I spent a whole week finding all those refs earlier and was as surprised as you to find the mistake. But it makes sense. There's still some unraveling to do, and also investigation as to the real origins of Irving Plaza. I may do some interviews. Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to go off half-cocked like that. I thought that either someone was pulling a fast one, or that a big mistake was being made (since in my various investigations of the area I had never suspected there was a second venue), and I clearly over-reacted. My apologies. I believe everything's back to where you left it, with the addition of the "copied" template and a project banner on the discussion page of the new article. I look forward to looking through your list of sources this weekend and seeing what they have to offer. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I didn't have a Times paid account when I did all that so, although I could dig them up I couldn't actually read a lot of them. Now, after they erected the paywall, they comped me an account, so I can :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on The Standells. I think your edits are fine, but the problem is that there is obviously a dispute between different elements as to aspects of the Standells' rights and history. I haven't looked into it yet in any detail, but any involved editors seeking to impose their own points of view there should not be editing the article because of their conflict of interest. I'll try and find time to take a look at it in more detail, but it does need a major clean-up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible - I thought that at first, but then I was not so sure. The edits were not seriously conflicting, but there was the peculiar comment about 'common law trademark since 1962' in the edit summary.. Standell66 could be Dodd rather than Valentino, too. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I am, on the other hand, not too offended by YouTube refs as evidence that, say, events occurred. What's difficult to sort out here is what, if anything, is in dispute. That's when the self-serving refs come into question. The other issue is the whole positioning of the band as "godfathers of punk" - I think that's stretching it. Putting it in the lede is a pure marketing tactic. Wwwhatsup (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Part of the problem is that the latest editor seems completely unwilling to learn the basics of how to cite sources. (And, yes, I've used YouTube refs in the past, but only when absolutely necessary.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: By the way, I'd be happy if you wanted to pull together a revised version of the text, taking on board the refs you've uncovered. I'm going to be tied up off-WP for the next few days - returning later in the week, I hope. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: I've added the note below to the other editors' talk pages:
The article has now been protected for a week. Can I suggest that, during that time, all interested editors raise any concerns they have about the current wording here on the article talk page, so that a way forward can be agreed through consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested that I may have a conflict of interest, which I do not. I consider myself to be a fan of vintage rock. I have also done slight editing on the Love page. John Fleckenstein is the same John Fleckenstein of the Standells. This is how I got interested in the Standells. The first edits I made were minor. I can find no reference to any court filings which would substantiate that the Standells name is under legal dispute, aside from Tamblyn's ownership of the Standells name, filed with the U.S. Patent office. Also, there was an earlier reference to Tony leaving to join the group the Icons. I also checked this out on the Icons YouTube page, bio. In addition there is a reference to the Icon's agent. This is why I merely copied the earlier edit, re-inserting this information. Sixtyfix (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I am somewhat with you on the lack of references to a dispute over the name. However what we have been seeing is back and forth edits between evidently involved parties over the recent use of the name, included repeated assertions about who originated it, along with the sudden and well referenced, after 46 years managing without, registration of the service mark by Tamblyn. Lastly, when any editor pops up out of nowhere to make edits relating to a single subject, including reverting controversial information, there is always going to be that suspicion. To your credit, unlike those other editors you appear prepared to argue your case via summaries & discussion pages. I am sure you will find Ghmyrtle reasonable. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me how "it has a longer wikipedia article in Hungarian" means anything. Particularly when it's pretty much a clone of the English article, complete with the TOTAl lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)17:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are details of releases on both Polygram and Universal. I admit the lack of sources, but I take them in good faith. Hungarian sources are not that easy to find on the Internet. The band evidently had longevity and made some kind of local impact. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Welcome to Wikipedia"??? ROTFLMAO!!! Probably, "I Jethrobot", you were kidding. Jethro, this user is active on the English Wikipedia since March 2005 (with countless of very valuable edits and contributions), and, most probably, he was the person who welcomed you in 2006 (lol). Wwwhatsup, maybe you (or other involved editors) can request to undelete that article at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. I cannot see a consensus there, and, eventually, there was a consensus for keeping the list!!! Try the following templates for sorting out sources (and search for forerunner+punk without the double quotes, instead of ("list of..."): {{Find sources 2}}→{{Find sources 2|forerunners|punk|-wikipedia|free=yes}}→Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL AND {{Find sources 3}}→<code>{{Find sources 3|forerunners+punk}}→Find sources:Google (books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs) ·FENS·JSTOR·TWL
... I took a look... and the results seem good in both cases. Anyway, a search for something like: "list of orange-red bananas"' will produce no results, obviously, and it's the same for "List of forerunners of punk rock" (enclosed in double quotes). Bad faith? A desire to be right at all costs? Who knows??? All the best, and, once again, thank you for the great photo of Mikey Dread (and remove the {{Talkback}} I placed at the top of this page). –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think I Jethro actually had a fair point. I did break protocol. But you are right, if the WP:V standard is to be applied then probably 100% of the genre-based lists on WP are due for the chop. They really operate by consensus. Perhaps it should all be done by categories. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
