Talk:Street performance/Archive 2

Video "Those Bloody Buskers"

Please do not add the video "Those Bloody Buskers" again (and please remove it again if necessary):

1. It includes a very poor voice-over which is extremely hard to understand, because the voice is distorted.
2. The video was seemingly put on here by User:BuskerAlley with the sole purppose of advertising his/her website (see Special:Contributions/BuskerAlley, there are no significant other contributions of that user so far (nearly half a year after the video has been inserted)
3. It is not really informative.

Of course, an article about buskers may be illustrated by a somewhat unusual and creative video. But this is still encyclopedia, so it should be easily understandable, informative and without advertisement. --Scartelak (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have to be the supreme e-loser that you are to remove a busker documentary featuring over 20 different buskers and street performers from which everyone could learn. There was no advertisement in-as-much as nothing was being sold. There was also nothing wrong with the audio...just your very old computer. This behaviour is typical of internet users filled with self-importance that go around crapping in webpages and forums. Here, we see that this person isn't even a busker. Yet, they try to influence the internet with their emotional problems and judgements. I can only assume you are filled with jealousy that someone made an excellent documentary which, thanks to your ignorance, nobody here will now get to see. I would encourage everyone to undo anything Scartelak edits in this article's page or any other here at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.48.158.2 (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, there's nothing wrong with my computer, and it is not nearly as old that it couldn't play a video correctly.
2. The video definitely is advertisment. The term doesn't imply that you have to buy something. You can also advertise Wikipedia, even though it's completely free!
3. Obviously, you have a problem, if you don't even dare to sign your posts. Probably you're just User:BuskerAlley not signed in. It is just ridiculous that you're accusing me of "crapping around in forums" as everyone could check in the log that my contributions to Wikipedia are actually valuable, whereas you are really crapping around anonimously with an IP and not delivering serious arguments. Also, you call me a "supreme e-loser" and at the same time accuse me of "emotional judgements". So what does this tell us, huh? I guess it tells us your credibility is close to zero.
4. In case the advertised website is informative, it could be added to the links section instead. But it shouldn't appear in any video in included in this site. --Scartelak (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Scar, as the anonymous busker who created 80% of the content of this article, I say there probably is not anything wrong with your computer but there is something wrong with your attitude. Over the years I have strived to keep this article clear of vanity posts and self promotion and I have no affiliation with busker alley other than spiritually as a fellow busker. The BA vid is both informative and despite the sound effects can be clearly understood. It is clearly not an advertisement selling anything, but a mini docuementary of over 20 buskers just like it says it is. Artists have a right to sign their work. The sound effects of the humorous and satirical voice over make a statement about those with anti busking attitudes which is probably what you are really objecting to. The BA vid belongs and should remain until something better comes along. The idea is to inform and educate people, not leave them hanging in ignorance. You should be thanking the folks at busker alley for their contribution. Busker alley currently has a vid showing over 100 buskers but it clearly is promoting something (some mall in denver) and that I would not think was cool or allow.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.89.244 (talk)

Well no, the video can not be understood clearly enough. I am not saying it is a bad video, it just definitely does not belong into an encyclopedia! You say "Artists have a right to sign their work". Of course everyone is free to produce artworks however she or he likes. However, this is not an art gallery but an encyclopedia. Thus, everything should be as easy to understand as possible. That is what we strive for when writing the articles and it should obviously be the same for images and videos. Or do you think it would be appropriate for wikipedia to write an article about, say, Shakespeare in the form of a poem? Probably not - and a "humorous and satirical voice", as you write, is not more suitable than that. Additionally, I think it is quite far-fetched to call a video with a humorous and satirical voice a documentary.

I can't see why the video should stay until something better comes along. It is not necessary to have a video inside every article, in fact, the vast majority does not include one. If there is no video with an encyclopaedic value then that is no excuse for incorporating one of inferior quality. Neither is it true that people are left hanging in ignorance since they have a whole article to read (which tells them a lot more about busking than the video).

Also - as already mentioned above - an advertisement does not need to advertise something that will be charged for. Anyway, it speaks for itself that the user page of User:BuskerAlley was deleted with the comment "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", what else is there to say?

"As the anonymous busker who created 80% of the content" Everyone could say that. Of course you are free and welcome contribute anonymously (and thank you in case you really did those 80%), but don't expect anyone to believe that. You could easily have created a user account for yourself, then it would be easy to see if your claim is true. But now it is nothing more than speculation.

As it seems you have noticed in the meantime, there is actually a history of discussion pages, which is probably why you deleted your unfounded allegation that I had deleted comments of other people. --Scartelak (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no way that this is suitable for an encyclopedia article. A documentary video of busking is a good idea, but this is nowhere near a documentary for the reasons detailed by Scartelak. Nyttend (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Scar and Nytt, what you fail to understand is that you are subtracting information from this website rather than adding to it. The documentary video Those Bloody Buskers features busking information, shows buskers performing in action, and provides audio - something text just can't do. It shows users a lot more than writing ever possibly could. Why do you think Wiki enabled video to begin with? You are not buskers. You do not have the faintest idea what it's like to entertain the public on the world's streetcorners. You simply won't be able to find another busker documentary that features 20 plus buskers performing their art. Why? Buskers are a very rare breed. The private website Busker Alley has one video alone featuring over 100 buskers but it also promotes a particular mall and therefor i would not allow it. It also has several others videos each with 20-30 unique buskers being presented. Where does it say a documentary can't be humorous and informative? You are simply mistaken and misguided. Nobody knows how you arrived at this page or why you're even here. Maybe you could enlighten us. Are you obsessed with videomakers? Wikipedia? Buskers? Just exactly of what worth are you to this site? Or are you here just to crap in Wiki's pages and make this site and the internet less informative? BuskerAlley (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1. BuskerAlley, it's important, since this is an encyclopedic venture, to be calm, courteous, and clear in discussions, and not to engage in flames, trolling, rhetoric & etc.
2. The use of correct usernames is important, because there are so many users with similar names. I'm pretty sure the actual users Scar and Nytt would be surprised to see their names dragged into this debate with Nyttend and Scartelak.
3. Understanding the encyclopedic nature and intentions of Wikipedia is important, because that understanding will ultimately bring disputes like the above to a calm resolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes
4. Understanding what WP is not is equally important: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Wikipedia_is_not . WP:PROMOTION WP:NOTMIRROR WP:BATTLE
5. Look around at articles with Good Article status. Try to find any which incorporate user-generated video as source material (except in the case of crime or event coverage). You will see that there is zero acceptance of jokey productions with a)impressions "voices" vs straight voiceover, b)echo & reverb effects, c) extremely prominent repeated placement of production co or website d) no interviews e) no references cited e) not cited in other notable scholarly or media publications.
6. There is zero acceptance of purely commercial or exploitative productions, except in articles about them.
7. I've watched the disputed video, and can't see a reason to include it in this article. It is entertainment, not a documentary. More specifically, it is an amusement. It documents nothing: no names, places, dates, reasons, methods, amounts, specific history, few if any interactions with an audience, no interviews, no experts, no references. It lacks a documentary voice: no text, inconsistent "duologue" voiceover. It utterly fails as any sort of documentary, as constructed. It is better labelled as an impressionistic rumination about buskers, and it's a fine impressionistic rumination about buskers, at that.
8. I've dealt with other users who try to force an article to promote their products and video. See this example of a particularly intransigent user who required my attention in detail for some time before he finally came to understood the nature of advertising and notability on WP. Will you be requiring my attention in this matter?
9. No, most of us are not buskers. We brave few, we stalwart few, are Wikipedia editors, engaged in the quest to create, by consensus, a verifiable, notable, encyclopedic article. Are you an editor? Will you take up the charge? Will you read Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of making a WP:Good Article? --Lexein (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's been 3 days, so I'm removing the video per my above assessment. --Lexein (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

lexien re BA video, you just don't get it do you? Busker alley it is not a self promotion site but an educational site for the promotion of the art of busking in general, kind of like wikipedia, but only concerned with busking. I challange you to find any commercial product in that video or on the website. The entire busker alley web site is merely there to inform people and promote the art of busking and promotes no commercial products or anything remotely like that. There is zero commercial or exploitive content. Your arguements are totally unfounded and irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.140.80 (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the video promotes the website; commercial or not, driving traffic is per se promotional. Beyond that, I won't be tutoring you on how to make a less WP:PROMO version, make it more like a documentary or improve its WP:NOTABILITY. FYI my point #6 above was a general one about kinds of videos which aren't accepted either, and was intended to illustrate that your video was not being singled out or treated unfairly. Any response to my other founded, rational points? --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

lexein, apart from admonishing others to reference complete and whole user-names, video producers have every right to sign their work. Whether it's signed by a surname, website, organization, or company, the producer creates - for credit and portfolio. This removal of video(s) is some sort of technicality here that you and the rest of these so-called Wiki editors are enjoying. I hope you and the others delete many more items here with continued success. However, I find it's rather ironic these guys are deleting Wiki content as confused as they seem - then run to post they have done so - as if they were some valuable part of Wiki. So I went to Busker Alley to see Those Bloody Buskers for myself. With all the gorgeous HD video on their site, one wonders why they would bother at all with Wiki - unless they were just being nice and the page needed a video at the time. But I like it. From the looks of it, I'm sure they could make plenty more videos if they wanted. You have editors here that are confused about the subject matter. Busking is many things but mostly a lifestyle of entertainment. That's why the video in question is first and foremost entertaining. That's what a busker does. To further understand just what busking is, you can see the Busker Central reference site which, incidently, isn't even mentioned at all here. Busking is not native to the United States. Perhaps this ethno-centric barrier is part of the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.249.175 (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My points are, in the main, policy and guideline based. You might do better to respond with verifiable, reliably 3rd-party sourced content. Propose better videos which have been created by, or reviewed in, reliable sources. Find sources for unsourced sections of this article. While you're at it, you might as well admit that I never advocated non-signing of work. I won't be responding to your other opinions, because the Talk page is for discussing improvement of articles within WP policies and guidelines. And by the way, if I were a deletionist, vast unsourced swaths of the article would be gone WP:BRD WP:BURDEN. --Lexein (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the losers are still editing this page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.250.193 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you explain further, considering WP:Five Pillars, especially WP:CIVIL? Which editor(s) are you unhappy with? If any editor disagrees with a policy stated here, they are welcome to discuss that here or on that policy's Talk page. If any editor thinks another editor is wrong, they're welcome to discuss it here or that editor's Talk page, or to request WP:Editor assistance, or seek a WP:Third Opinion. If an editor (such as myself) has been really out of line, there are further WP:Dispute resolution procedures, too.

I might be reading 4.227.250.193 wrongly, but if the vast accumulated consensus of Wikipedia policy, and quoting them, is for "losers", then http://includipedia.com might suit. They are more inclusive, and indeed have a powerful bias against deletionism; indeed any deletions require stronger justification and/or consensus. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiable reliable 3rd party sources are still strongly encouraged, however, especially for WP:Good Articles and WP:Featured articles. --Lexein (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Busker Alley is a beautiful site. I see that most of the discussion page here at Wiki has also been removed. I assusme this satisfies the personal agenda here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.255.19 (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Removed" - part of this discussion page has been archived - see the Archives infobox above, with the link and the search box, to alleviate the massive size of the discussion page, and the age of the topic discussion. Giant discussion pages are unwieldy and slow to use for discussion. No discussion has been deleted by me, nor, I expect, by anyone else. Such deletions would be obvious in the Page History, and would be a massive violation of trust, and a violation of the WP:Five Pillars which stand in the hierarchy above policy, guideline, or essay. It's even frowned upon for someone to delete their own comments, or delete sections of comments, in such a way as to damage the understanding of a discussion. Here's the deal - if, after an examination of the history and above archive, any discussion has been deleted, we'll bring it right back here. No agenda. --Lexein (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Page editing - Always a problem

I think everyone should read the editing suggestions before contributing to this site. You'll find the pages are endlessly edited to suit whatever the agenda. I edited my own discussion statements above and here because I simply changed my mind. What is interesting is having reference and information sites removed. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.254.129 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 October 2009

Expanding cites/references

I'm in process fleshing out cites/references, so their appearance will be changing as they are expanded. Your patience and non-reversion is appreciated. --Lexein (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Lexein (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul McCartney cite discussion

1. This is a great quote, but it's unverifiable, so I moved it to TALK and replaced it with a verifiable one, below:

"Paul McCartney of the Beatles donned a disguise and went busking. In an interview on Britain's Radio One he revealed: "It was for a film thing (Give My Regards To Broad Street, 1984) and it was something I'd always wanted to do, so I scruffed myself up a bit, put on a false beard and shades, and went down to Leicester Square tube station. It was really cool. A couple of people came up and said, 'Is it you?' but I just said, 'Oh, no'. But I got a few shillings and I thought, 'This doesn't feel right,' so I gave it to charity."

--Give My Regards to Broad Street (1984) - Trivia IMDB.com. Retrieved 2010-06-29.

• IMDB.com Trivia is user generated, so a verifiable cite is needed; this is a quote of a living person.
• When was the BBC interview? Who did it? Likely before 2005 (the date of the post at askmen.com). No BBC archive or transcript has been found.

2. 1984 interview full quote, behind a paywall at the Boston Globe:

"Should the tapes be irretrievable, McCartney's character dreams of having to become a street musician again. For this scene, McCartney actually donned a disguise and performed as a busker in London's West End. "They grotted me up as much as they could with filth everywhere and a torn jacket. I was looking quite contemporary for a minute. And I said to the assistant director that somebody probably will throw some money in here and guess what they're going to say: 'He's a skinflint and he kept it!' Right? Skinflint Paul. So I told the assistant director, whatever we do, this money is going to The Seamen's Mission. We got quite a little bit. There was this fabulous old Scottish guy who was drunk out of his skull. He put his arm around me, 'Alright, son.' He didn't look at me or anything and just gave me all his coins."

--Steve Morse, Globe Staff (Oct 21, 1984). McCartney: 'Just being myself' Boston Globe, page B1. (paywall)

3. Another 1984 full quote, more easily verifiable:

A weary McCartney imagines himself a scruffy street singer, standing by a rail station pounding out "Yesterday." "Y'know, they just made me up and dropped me off. I told 'em we'd never get away with it, but they kept putting dirt on and rufflin' up me hair - I was looking better and better - and I figured why not. So I was standin' there plunkin' chords, doing this silly version of the song, and no one noticed it was me. No one wants to look a busker (street singer) in the eye, of course, 'cus then they get his life story. So they'd toss coins and I'd be going 'Yesterday, all my troubles - thank you, sir - seemed so far away.' [...] It was a great feeling. Just me and the music. [...] I made sure the money was donated to the Seaman's Mission." --

--David Hinckley (November 4, 1984). McCartney enjoys playing self in 'Broad Street'. Beaver County Times (New York Daily News)

So I used #3, trimmed a bit. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original article I cited when I placed the info in the late summer of 06. The url changed slightly. http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Sir+Paul+McCartney-4863.html AB (anonymous busker) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.44 (talk • contribs) 1:21, 3 November 2010

Good. The cited source, http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/48632004.htm, added in this edit, dated July 4, 2005 deadlinked in 2008. Now, http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/Sir+Paul+McCartney-4863.html has a date of "Wednesday 30th November -0001", and it has never had a byline or agency source listed. In other words, it's an anonymous item. Next: In this January 2010 edit, another editor (not me!) unfortunately, and against best practice, deleted the deadlinked FemaleFirst cite, instead of researching it or tagging it with {{Template:deadlink}}. (I used to comment out deadlinked URLs, but now "deadlink" tag them). Deleting sources isn't how we want to do it, clearly. As a result, in July 2010, seven months later I saw the McCartney quote as unsourced, and went forward from there, seeking and finding the two 1984 replacements, rather than see the quote deleted as unsourced. I also preserved the original in this discussion. The 2005/-0001 source, does not state the location (London), time period (c. 1984), or reason (filming) for the busking. --Lexein (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is quoting the BBC Radio One interview. Unfortunately to access BBC archives you have to be a British citizen and a supporting (paying) member of BBC. Tell me lex, in your world if a link about the atomic bombing of hirishima dies does that mean hiroshima was never bombed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.44 (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow - I repeat: The (anonymous) "2005/-0001" source, does not state the location (London), time period (c. 1984), or reason (filming) for the busking -- it's a very, very poor source for encyclopedic purposes, especially when better, contemporaneous (c.1984), detailed interviews are available. The sourced quote I replaced it with was a direct interview with Mr. McCartney in 1984, the very same year the film was released for which he filmed the busking scene. Better sources do improve articles. That's what I try to do.

When links die (or in this case are deleted by another editor seven months prior), alternate sources are sought! It's normal! When better, more highly detailed, more direct, more accountable sources are available, I will use them. This implies no disrespect to the originating editor's work, and none to the article, busking, or (now) Sir Paul.

By the way, if you have access to any British interviews (newspaper, magazine, radio) from 1984 about the film w/McCartney in which he describes the incident, we could certainly use that. Use http://webcitation.org to snag a copy of the page (so that the rest of the world can see it), and list it here, and I or another editor will put it in, or help you put it in. Quality sources count. --Lexein (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

re Lexein removing information--possible vandalism?

Lexein is a not a very good editor at all. I see Lexien has removed all the previous discussions in the discussion area about this article except those which Lexein has engaged in. Lexein has also edited what remains to suit his agenda. Lexein has also removed the positive peer reviews this article recieved before he started vandalising the article. I think Lexien is a bit of a megalo maniac. Lexein has an agenda and it is not the virtuous integrity of wikipedea he talks about. It seems more like Lexein is out to denegrate the art form of busking and hide the possible fame one can attain and the free speech laws which protect buskers in the usa.

Lexein has clearly removed more info than he has added and sought to misinform people about busking being the bottom rung of the entertainment industry.

First of all busking is the proper english name for people who perform in public for tips. Street performance is merely one aspect of busking. Much busking goes on at festivals, fairs, flea markets, farmers markets, malls, parks and in coffee houses, bars, pubs and restuarants, all of which are not on the street. Street performer is a somewhat inadequate and denegrating term.

Lexein removed all information about pitfalls and hecklers and also erased nearly a dozen info links to dealing with hecklers in this discussion area. He removed all info about squatters and pitch disputes and dealing with theives. Its not a candy land out there. Lexein just because you are ignorant of such things doesn't mean they don't exist.

Lexien was ready to remove one of the most successful and famous buskers of all time from the busking article because Lexien was to lazy to do a search. Type in the words busk and laliberte into any search engine and you will come up with dozens possibly even hundreds of links to laliberte's busking exploits. The same for all the other super stars and information Lexein has eliminated. Lexien can't seem to wrap his head around the concept that the citations were in the articles about the superstars mentioned. Does wikipedia need redundancy ? Also much of the info was very common knowledge.

Lexein removed the best short video on busking I have ever seen. His flaming 9 points are 9 points of bs. Every citation on wikipedia is a link out and potential spam and potential self promotion . Artists have a right to sign their work. If they wouldnt have signed it Lexein would probably be demanding a citation for it.

Lexien and his consorts have removed much of the important legal info to another article and challenged every bit of it. Why? Since the info on conspiracy against civil rights has totally disappeared he and his consorts are probably up to just such kind of illegal activities. Erasing knowledge and misinforming people isnt going to change the laws.

I urge every wikipedean to log in and file complaints about what Lexien and his consorts have done to this article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.44 (talk • contribs) 1:21, 3 November 2010 up to and including —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.44 (talk • contribs) 2:53, 3 November 2010

• In my defense, I've deleted no comments, committed no vandalism, and deleted no content or sources without discussion, and have no agenda against busking, the article, or its name. This talk page is for discussions about improving the article, not WP:ATTACKing other editors.

1. The comments have not been deleted, they've been archived, see above, where it says Archive. (By the way, hello, old User:BuskerAlley, by the way - I see 130.65.109.44 edited BuskerAlley's comment here, adding but it also promotes a particular mall and therefor i would not allow it. Such a self-edit, long after a discussion, serves to disturb the sense of the conversation - please don't do it.)
2. The one deletion I made in this article was after extensive discussion, with the support of other editors, and was in accordance with long standing policy, guideline, and essay, about the types and nature of content appropriate for an encyclopedic article about busking.
3. I deleted no content but the "those bloody buskers" video, for all the reasons cited, which were agreed to by other editors unrelated in any way to me. Uncited material can be removed at any time, uncontroversially, by any editor. Everything in WP must be WP:RS reliably sourced. I have signed unsigned edits using the {{Template:Unsigned}} tag. By the way all anonymous IP editors are welcome, and invited to sign your edits using --~~~~ - it's easy!
4. The article was WP:TOOLONG long, so another editor (not me), with no foreknowledge or cooperation by me, moved the large and well documented US legal section to another article. Some of you anonymous folks insist on checking in every six months, instead of staying engaged on a weekly basis. Wikipedia is not static. Knowledgeable buskers who understand the goals of Wikipedia should contribute regularly, not sporadically.
5. The Paul McCartney quote had been unsourced from January to July 2010 (see why above), so I re-sourced it from contemporaneous 1984 sources, and requoted it, with what I opine are better sources.
6. Comment: I have no agenda against busking, but because of all that Wikipedia is WP:NOT, I have advocated for more and better sourcing, and less promo. I fleshed out nearly all of the citations here, and more than half the law citations in the US Law section, because I like content to be verifiable, and raw links to be recoverable even if web.archive.org doesn't have them. I even _like_ rich media, but it should have zero promo content, and a clear Creative Commons CCbySA license stated on its source website and, if possible, in the video itself. Oh, and I have no consorts. For an informative read, see WP:Beware of the tigers.
7. I welcome any administrative investigation of my editing history, especially in this article, and will abide by any decision arrived at by WP:3O Third Opinion, WP:EAR Editor Assistance Requests, WP:MEDCAB Mediation, or WP:ARBCOM should you choose to take this WP:CONFLICT resolution issue so far as that.

Cheers, --Lexein (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ROFL - Lex is totally lost! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.250.26 (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think I did wrong, request an investigation, contribute to the article, or discuss civilly. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey lex quit the BS. I had a printed copy of the article and with the pics it was under 10 pages. There was no legitimate discussion about the inappropriate name change, the removal of the pitfalls section. Re the buskers who went on to become superstars citations could have been found and added to the page by a good editor who wanted to enlighten people rather than deleted by somone who wants to denegrate an artform or is too lazy to fix it. That is if it realy is a problem. The cites were in the actual articles about the stars mentioned. It would be redundant. Also much of it is common knowledge. The thing I find most disturbing is the removal and challenging of the US law section. It speaks worlds about the eroding of our constition and free speech laws and attempts to hide the laws and peoples rights. Re the removal of the video is a tragic loss for those who seek to learn about busking. If a picture is worth a thousand words how many is a good video worth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.109.44 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No BS here. You blamed me personally for a lot of changes with which I had nothing to do. If you bother to check the article history, you'll see that the one thing I removed was discussed (see the discussion Archives). The video was removed after a consensus of other editors, with which I happened to agree. My advice? Assume good faith, because, in the vast main, I have acted in good faith. --Lexein (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Lex - You're wrong again. The movie was removed because BA ignored Wiki's request to change the license agreement. I guess they're just too busy shooting the movie to deal with Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.250.107 (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, no. The article history clearly discloses the reason, date, time, and deleting editor: me. The discussion of the deletion is still here and there's nothing about a "license agreement," but plenty about its low documentary usefulness. Look please escalate this, since you think I did wrong - ask for WP:Third opinion, WP:Editor assistance, WP:Mediation, or any other WP:Dispute resolution method you choose. Or, you could just get to work and contribute reliable third-party-sourced material to the article. --Lexein (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

ROFL - Lex, you're wrong yet again. You couldn't possibly know what transpired between Wiki and BA like I do. BTW, I'm not sure how Wiki would like it's "editors" telling others to STFU like you do...then editing it away. You're a total goof making us laugh at your foolishness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.248.55 (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I'm right. I removed the video from the article, but not WP file storage. There's no "wiki" person. If you've been in communication about content licensing with other editors, good. If the video was uploaded without a proper content license (public domain, Creative Commons, GFDL, GPL, or other) as supported by the author, that's a quite normal reason for deletion from the WP servers. If you and any other IP ("anonymous") editors would kindly address your complaints to the responsible editors, or escalate using the WP:Dispute resolution process, and stop blaming me for the actions and communications of others, I'd appreciate it. And read WP:CIVIL. --Lexein (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK - Now that we know that Lex is a fraud, I strongly suggest we report him then get someone in here who knows what they're doing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.150.15.138 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL I refer you again, and anyone else interested, to my above mention of contributions, and edit histories. Anonymous IP editor, there's no "we" to "report him". It's unclear to whom you are speaking in all of your above railing against me. As for "report"ing me, do it yourself. Don't be afraid. Actually file a legitimate complaint via any of the processes available, and listed at WP:Dispute resolution. Since you haven't bothered, in several years to do any such thing, it is reasonable to assume that you are not serious. --Lexein (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what I am doing too. Longtime abuse of a legitimate editor - like Lexein - is inappropriate and will not be tolerated any longer. If you feel that what ze is doing is wrong, then file a complaint at dispute resolution. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In the sentence: In her documentary movie and book, Underground Harmonies: Music and Politics in the Subways of New York, Susie J. Tanenbaum examined how the adage "Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast" plays out in regards to busking. --I have removed the words "documentary movie and" since there is no documentary movie by this title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.243.99.142 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)