Jump to content

Talk:The Hamsters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"libellous and defamotory material"

[edit]

This article links to its creators web-site which contains libellous and defamotory material pertaining to Simon Cowell and a violation of his intellectual property rights.

You obviously haven't got to the class that delineates the differences between "libel", "defamation" and "common abuse". There are no violation of copyrights. Perhaps you should read up on MCPS. ---- WebHamster 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. That is no reason to delete the Wiki article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the site in qeustion i agree that (whether you like or dislike Simon Cowell is not the issue) an animation of someone urinating over a (copied) image of simon cowell is defamatory. In any event this artice or advert is about an unknown band and the BBC link is from a local (coventry) station and not the main BBC. In fact the bbc link highlights just how insignificant this band is on the British Music scene.

Given you and your friends are WP:SPAs that have been trolling this article and the users defending it, I do not believe you. While we're at it, don't lie on edit summaries. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jéské, but an image of a cartoon character peeing on someone's head is not defamatory, neither is it libellous nor unlawful. It's perfectly legal. It would be another matter totally if it was an image photoshopped to appear like Cowell was peeing on someone. Do you really think the band would have put something like that up without taking legal advice first? ---- WebHamster 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly does a BBC article which begins They've been voted the best blues band in the UK and consistently sell out venues across the UK ... highlight the band isn't notable? In fact, it does quite the opposite. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well i trawled through whos who in music and who is and if you have access to musicians directory there is no mention whatsoever of them. In fact i could list about another 20 reputable directories and none of them include 'the hamsters'. Also checked every uk hit - but no- never heard of them. Also looking again at that BBC article it is confined to a small part of a small part of the Uk which in turn is a small part of the globe. Still so long as you and a handful of others think they are notable who is the rest of the world to argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.179.222 (talk • contribs)

Please sign any comments you leave. The Hamsters aren't signed up to "UK Music Who's Who" because they don't need the work. You did realise that it's a promotions agency rather than an independent database didn't you? The book you linked to on Amazon wouldn't contain them either as that book is for classical musical artists, duh! And no they haven't had a chart hit. Since when has that been a sign of notability as opposed to marketability? In any case when was the last time you saw a blues band in the UK charts? All of the Hamsters catalogue is on Amazon and I have no idea why you would think they would be in some Canadian database. They are of course in Allmusic should you care to look. ---- WebHamster 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do you expect to find information about a blues band in a book that is a classical music directory? Your actions here are obviously in violation of WP:POINT. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


No reliable sources are referenced to prove notability. The existing references only link to the band's own pages and the article sounds more like a promo or advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.35.110 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is blatant spam for a group that nobody has either heard or cared about. It may also contain copyright violations in respect of the estate of the late Jimi Hendrix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.35.110 (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bull. I note that all these IPs are coming from one university and making legal threats to other editors; I suggest you quit while you're where your at before I complain to your university about the legal threats. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This group seems legitimate and the references include a BBC article review. A google search reveals a fair number of related hits. I don't see the copyright violation and disagree with the CSD request. My opinion is this belongs in AFD if you want it deleted. I'm not going to nominate it myself because it is not a clearcut violation of WP:MUSIC. Seems like an abuse of the CSD process. Pilotbob 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you not nomiate it - it's retaliation by a student union after an article was protected. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it's retaliation by a student union" what student union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.180.191 (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The troll Jeske has already stated the University of Plymouth Students union. I just love the way they (or maybe there is just one) gang up to defend their blatant abuse of anyone or anything that dares to challenge their trollish behaviour and plagarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.179.222 (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's what I'm going to say in response to this: stop trying to paint others with your brush. The only one trolling here is you, and I see that you're making ad hominem attacks against WebHamster. Stop trying to disrupt to make a point; you're only going to get yourself blocked, regardless of the checkuser result on you, these other IPs who have been bad-faith tagging the article, and Yiwentang. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through your contribs, 84, I see absolutely NO contribs that are not trolling or a form thereof. Adding to CU. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a week

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Protection policy; repeated abuse and bad faith edits from IP editors. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Names

[edit]

I note that "WebHamster" has removed the real names of the musicians.

Unless this can be justified, I propose that they are re-inserted. The idea of any encyclopedia is to inform, not obfuscate the facts. Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Slim and Otis' real names on their request. Andy doesn't have any objection to his being used which is why he has his own article and the others don't. I've done so per WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown. Actually, on this matter I'm on your side and I've tried to persuade them to let me write up more on them but they are intensely private people, especially Slim. --WebHamster 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pseudonyms read like joke names, which makes the article sound like a bit of a piss-take. (Which is unfortunate as they are an outstanding band.) Would it be better to rephrase things and make the reason for the pseudonyms explicit in the article? eg: replace the sentence "The original line-up was Snail's-Pace Slim on guitar and vocals, Rev Otis Elevator on drums and Andy Farrell on bass" with something like "The band members are intensely private people and some frefer to use stage pseudonyms. In the original line-up, the guitarist and vocalist used the name 'Snail's-Pace Slim' and the drummer was known as 'Rev Otis Elevator': Andy Farrell (his real name) was the bassist." What do you think? Bluewave (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Webhamster! I think the article looks much more encyclopedic now. Hope others agree! Bluewave (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is crazy; the real names of the musicians are easy to find. I saw the Hamsters over ten years ago, solely because I had heard of Barry Martin in Guitarist magazine. (and they were brilliant FWIW). They may not /like/ being namechecked but leaving the reals names out make the Wikipedia article look like a publicity stunt and invites the stupid comments (above) from people who don't realise the reputation and reality of what are actually one of the most respected bands on the ciorcuit. The Yowser (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an example:

http://www.southend-sites.co.uk/people/barry.html

Also, if Barry is that shy, why does he use his real name as his songwriting credit on Hamsters albums?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Live_By_Night_(album)

The Yowser (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a requirement of ASCAP/MCPS etc that writer's real names are used. Why do you think Muddy Waters is always credited as McKinley Morganfield when it comes to writing credits? The They Live By Night article just says (per MoS) that Barry Martin wrote the songs, it doesn't say who he is other than that. The Southend link you provided is a 3rd party and is out of the control of Slim. He is in control (to a degree) of what appears on WP about him. It's a BLP issue as he has requested that his real name isn't used and that an individual article doesn't appear about him either under Slim or his real name. It's his choice and it should be respected. The use of his real name is unimportant in the scheme of things and doesn't really imbue the article with extra depth by its inclusion. --WebHamster 01:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the band loads of times and I think the pseudonyms are all part of their tongue in cheek style. But you have to be good to get away with this light-hearted approach. This style was out in force when they toured with Wilko and the king of spoofery himself, John Otway. Royzee (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New DVD

[edit]

The lads did indeed record footage for a new DVD at the Milton Keynes Woughton Centre a month or so ago. We were there and I filmed some bits with my camcorder so if you are interested I have posted some on You Tube. It was an excellent gig with some old and newer songs and covers being played. Some mistakes were made causing even more frivolity.

The Woughton Centre was where their earlier DVD was recorded. As far as I know The Hamsters are the only band to have released a DVD recorded at this venue. Also according to legend The Hamsters used to play there at the popular Sunday lunchtime concerts in the 1990s (and could in part explain their affection for the venue). This tradition continues today with many excellent bands appearing - one every Sunday near enough, free entry (1.15 pm to 3.15 pm). It is what I call 'Milton Keynes' Best Kept Secret' so pop along and give your ears a treat.

Finally, as to the name of the new DVD my money's on 'The Hamsters Live at the WC" (though it is called 'The Pitz' for most of the evening shows. Royzee (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no brownie points for you I'm afraid. The DVD is going to be called Curse of the Killer Hamsters and will be their first DVD that was recorded totally digitally, has extras and possibly a decent easter egg (not counting the little easter egg on the Verminator! DVD). --WebHamster 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WD40

[edit]

Some more thoughts about our fave lads from Canvey.

Slim uses WD40 on his guitars - is this unique to him?

They use guitars embedded with LEDs and a laser for the show-closer 'Sharp Dressed Man'.

Their concerts are varied according to whose songs they do - sometimes it's just a mix of all three (ZZ Top, Jimi, Hamsters (which includes various others' songs such as Mickey Jupp et al.). They do not have a support act - the exception was The Mad, Bad & Dangerous Tour.

The Hamsters are not on any record label - they run the gigs and merch themselves. So they are despite the humorous names etc IMHO very single-minded businessmen.

Royzee (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

The References in the article violate Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and in general fairly weak. Any thoughts? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Gain some experience of the rules you quote before starting up with the wikilawyering. --WebHamster 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is using the bands own website to reference this bands article a "primary source"? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Please read the rules you are quoting before you quote them. I've explained your faux pas already on the mediation page. --WebHamster 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this argument just about the citation for when the band started playing and for the number shows that they claim to have played? If so, It doesn't seem exactly contentious to cite the band's own website. Or have I missed the point here (quite possibly!)? Bluewave (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the majority of their music coming under the Americana categorisation." needs a reference per WP:V. If it is true it should be easy to find. --John (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need a reference when there is a full listing of the contents of their CDs/DVDs which makes the genres obvious? --WebHamster 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:V and WP:NOR. --John (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in either of those pages that mentions musical genres. If a music artist plays predominantly American music then it's pretty bloody obvious they come under the Americana umbrella. One doesn't need citations for the bloody obvious. For example, there are no refs to back up the assertion that the Rolling Stones play rock music. To insist upon it here is nitpicking to the nth degree. In spite of which I have included one, just to keep you happy. --WebHamster 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I mean. Saying something doesn't need to be verifiable becaue it is "bloody obvious" (to you) is the epitome of original research. Fix it, please. --John (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Fix it"? I take it you haven't read either the above or the relevant section in the article. It is fixed, and was so prior to you 'instruction' to me. --WebHamster 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for adding a reference. Progress indeed. --John (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoI

[edit]

Frankly I'm getting sick to death of all these accusations of WP:COI. My alleged CoI was brought to WP:COIN recently and in spite of numerous accusations, numerous requests and numerous misdirections no credible evidence was produced that I have any conflict of interest here. I have repeatedly stated that I am merely a fan of the band and so far there has been no evidence to the contrary. I'm removing the CoI tag from the article. If someone wishes to re-add it then please do so but when you do please supply some evidence that backs up the assertion. --WebHamster 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly thinking of this, where you say you know the band (the subject of the article). Straight down the middle of COI. There are one or two articles that I avoid for similar reasons. After all there are 2 million other ones out there. If you know the band well you shouldn't be editing the article. In any case you shouldn't be removing tags while there is discussion here on talk about the issues. The COI and NPOV tags are justified and you should restore them yourself as you should not have removed them, until there is a consensus here that these issues have been addressed. Please do so. --John (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information I received from the band was as a result of emailing them asking for information with regard to the relevant articles. This is something anyone can do, should you want to do it I can give you the email address which is freely available on their website. It's quite apparent that you know absolutely nothing about the band which is why you have come to the conclusion you have done. The band are very friendly and frequently wander through the audience during set breaks. The chat with people and are always very friendly and accommodating with whoever wishes to hat with them or about them. Many fans consider themselves "friends of the band" because of the way they've been treated by the band, not because they are actually friends in the true sense of the word. Please also note that none of this appears in the article because that is genuine 'fan cruft' rather than your strange definition.
Additionally, you seem to forget that CoI isn't actually forbidden, so even if I did have the relationships you seem to think I have it still doesn't mean I am banned from editing the article. --WebHamster 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamster, did you say somewhere that you are the webmaster for The Hamsters? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, to be more precise. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which was a statement made 2 years ago. I am no longer associated with the band, and haven't been for a while. These days I'm just a fan. --WebHamster 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft holding zone

[edit]
  • "As the band ethos is to combine humour with music two members of the original band (now all three) use light-hearted and parodying pseudonyms as stage names." Cruft.
  • "They initially formed "to have a laugh" and didn't take themselves too seriously." Cruft.
  • "Their bookings quickly started to increase due to an increasing number of local music fans requesting venues to book them." Cruft.
  • "...when he has time" Cruft.
  • "As the band always intended their ethos to be the combination of humour and music, along with their desire to remain relatively anonymous, they decided to adopt light-hearted stage names" Cruft.

This is not the language of an encyclopedia, but instead the language of a fanzine. Even if these can be verified by adding third party references (at present none of them is referenced), they do not belong here. If anyone is unable to see that, they are likely to be too close to the subject and need to recuse from editing this. --John (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a smidgen of truth in what you say. However, you hugely exaggerate. So it's fair to say that I am unable to see the truth in what you're saying. Thus it's likely that I am too close to the subject and need to recuse myself from editing this. However, I'm an exception, because I know absolutely squat about the Hamsters other than what I've read here -- certainly I've never heard any of their music, whether recorded or live.
(The only reason I came here, if you're wondering, was that long ago I encountered WebHamster in an entirely different context -- a shopping mall in Plymouth, incredibly -- and when saying something on his talk page noticed talk of Hamsters, capitalized. And the reason I look in occasionally is that I see this page is subject to edit warring.)
Clearly a single exception (me) to a generalization doesn't disprove the generalization. However, when the first person to comment on the generalization (and somebody who, as far as he can remember, hasn't edited the article) says that the generalization doesn't apply to him, this might indicate the possibility that the generalization might be off.
I'm not going to go through all of the above: really, I'm not sufficiently interested. But I'll take the first one:
"As the band ethos is to combine humour with music two members of the original band (now all three) use light-hearted and parodying pseudonyms as stage names." Cruft.
Stylistically off. Without actually knowing anything about the band (and without even the energy needed to read the article to find out), I suppose it's something like: As the band's ethos has been to combine humour with music two members of the original band used light-hearted and self-parodying stage names; now all three do. Do they use such names? Well, the names are certainly bizarre, and it's not too much of a stretch to say they're light-hearted and self-parodying (for which there may be evidence elsewhere). If this is so, a short explanation seems welcome. Is the band ethos to combine humour with music (as opposed to, say, becoming rich, or pulling groupies and getting laid)? It seems likely, and evidence may be forthcoming. Half a sentence on this hardly seems excessive.
If you want to see popcruft, try this gush. (We get to read about a popster's fingernails and such.)
This is not to deny that there are problems with this article. Stuff that isn't sourced and that isn't self-evident should be sourced, and not to sites controlled by the band. But labeling the above as "cruft" seems at best an oddly belligerent way of going about improving the article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call it cruft or unreferenced opinion which is stylistically off is just semantics. Nobody experienced could restore text like this and think it a good thing. Bottom line is, it doesn't belong here, not remotely. Wouldn't you agree? --John (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you call [X] "P" or "Q" is just semantics to me means Whether you call [X] "P" or "Q" just depends on the meaning of one or more of those three. (Thus Whether you call Bush a conservative or a reactionary just depends on one or more of: (a) which Bush you're referring to, (b) what you mean by "conservative", and (c) what you mean by "reactionary".) And thus the statement doesn't tell me anything.
Cruft is a word generally used hereabouts to mean "trivial factoids of interest to nobody beyond the most ardent members of a fanbase". This is not the same as opinion (whether expert, moronic, or somewhere in between), and it's quite independent of the quality of writing.
WebHamster is demonstrably experienced and clearly thinks restoring this material is a good thing. (Of course, he may be wrong.)
Rather than calling this material "cruft", let's see whether it's potentially worthwhile; and, if it is, whether it's sourced. If it's not worthwhile, announce an intention to delete it, and if there's no substantive objection within a reasonable time, delete it. If it is putatively worthwhile but isn't sourced, ask for a source. If it can't be sourced after a reasonable time, delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to own up to having attended a couple of Hamster gigs, over the years, and to owning one of their CDs. However, I don't believe this places me "too close to the subject". I also don't much like the term "cruft", because I don't really know what it means, and it is hardly encyclopedic. With regard to "As the band ethos is to combine humour with music two members of the original band (now all three) use light-hearted and parodying pseudonyms as stage names." I don't really see the big problem with this. The statement "the band ethos is to combine humour with music" is factual and relevant. Likewise "members [...] use light-hearted and parodying pseudonyms as stage names". This last point is important to explain, as the stage names are used throughout the article. (In fact I think I was someone who originally asked for an explanation about the stage names to be given.) The use of stage names in Wikipedia articles is not unusual: the Sex Pistols article, for instance refers to Johnny Rotten and Sid Viscious! I agree that the Hamsters article could be improved, but that will not be achieved by edit warring. Bluewave (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FANCRUFT. --John (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of WP to inform people of something they didn't know? Why is it acceptable in, say a scientific article, for go into minutiae about the article's subject and that isn't just accepted, it's desired. Yet when one does the same thing with a band article all of a sudden it becomes 'cruft'?
The reason I keep replacing the text you delete John, is not because of WP:COI or WP:OWN but because I think, as a WP editor with more than 5 years experience, that you are wrong to delete pertinent information. For example the ethos of humour and music. As it happens I haven't gone into the amount of detail that is actually true e.g. the mix humour and music, they don't take themselves seriously but they do take the music and their performances seriously. They take their professionalism extremely seriously. As such what seems to you to be trivia is actually a very important factor in what drives the band to do what they do. This is the reason I 'insist' that it stays. Although I know this from talking to the guys at gigs, it's also published in quite a few dead tree publications so I feel okay about putting it in as it's not original research per se. As regards the explanation of their stage names, well I'm actually astonished that you genuinely think it shouldn't be there. Look at Gwar for example. The members of that band get full articles on their stage names, yet here you are bleating over a couple of sentences. The simple fact that the band use strange pseudonyms is cause in itself to explain why and what they mean. After all the article is here to inform isn't it? And there's very definitely a case of WP:PAPER here.
As far as the maintenance tags go. I explained the reason for the removal in the edit summary. As far as the COI goes my 'case' at WP:COIN was resolved with no credible evidence therefore until any future evidence may be presented then I've been cleared of it, in my mind that nukes the COI tag, unless of course you think someone else is guilty of COI? The NPOV tag went because as the tag states, "join the discussion". There is no discussion about NPOV. There are ones about COI, OWN and RC and V, but no NPOV. In any case there's no point in putting an NPOV tag on the top of an article and then not explaining where the neutrality problem actually lies. Should someone point me to it then I will do my best to sort it, or allow someone else to (subject to not losing any useful information). So no I don't intend replacing them until something changes that makes them necessary. As it happens I've tried my best to be as neutral as possible. I've made sure that none of their endorsements appear in the article in spite of an awful lot of articles doing so. I've tried to not to put anything that can directly benefit the band monetarily and I've tried not to use peacock terms. This last one is difficult for me as one of my jobs is to write creatively so have an automatic tendency to use words in that manner. This is not a deliberate act and I do try to override it but sometimes I can't see the wood for the trees.
The other thing that should be explained, though I'm not sure why I'm doing this as it's personal information, but hopefully it will explain my mindset. I have Asperger's Syndrome and one of the symptoms is OCD. This is why I'm tenacious and don't back down if I think I'm right. I always have a reason for doing something and that reason isn't always clear to people whose brains aren't wired the same as mine. I don't use this as an excuse, just as a reason. --WebHamster 13:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, yes I have looked at WP:FANCRUFT. That article states that it is a neologism. I have also read Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms! Irrespective of my own prejudices about geeky-looking terminology, the fact remains that the way to improve this article is not through edit warring. If we accept that The Hamsters meet the notability criteria for Wikipedia (and that doesn't seem to be questioned), how do we make this a better article? If we believe in the Wikipedia philosophy, the way to get a great article, is for a substantial number of people to contribute to the article. I think the Hamsters article suffers from the fact that most of the material has been contributed by one editor (WebHamster). That's not a complaint about WebHamster, just an observation that most other contributions seem have been to criticize WebHamster, or delete stuff that he has written, but not to develop or extend the article in a constructive way. Critics and deletionists have their place, but only when balanced by people who are prepared to research and write articles. So, putting my money where my mouth is (or my effort where my mouse is, so to speak) I have at least started trying to improve the article by finding some citations. Bluewave (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"a publicity shot for an unsuccessful bunch of wannabees who sometimes play in a pub"

[edit]
flamebait
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This entire article is a publicity shot for an unsuccessful bunch of wannabees who sometimes play in a pub !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.120.232 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I have removed some of the external links as they were simply online adverts for their latest gigs and small and un-notable public houses in the south.Yiwentang (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the title of this section is in quotes, I assume you are quoting your own opinion. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but the article has previously been assessed for deletion on the alleged grounds of non-notability, and the decision was to keep it. From my own reading of the notability criteria for bands, I think the Hamsters meet the criteria and believe the previous decision was correct. However, you are at liberty to reopen that debate if you like. But it would need a wider consensus than a couple of people's opinions. Bluewave (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Promotional Ad This article is a promotional ad for a pub band. It has no encyclopedic merit whatsover.217.44.219.116 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Bluewave; it's rather more complex than that:

It's also simpler. 81.157.120.232 and 217.44.219.116 are both "sockpuppets" of (IPs used by) Yiwentang: see this. So one person posted a comment, four hours later the same person totally agreed with the comment, and two hours after that the same person repeated it. There is some evidence to suggest that Yiwentang doesn't know who he/she is; Yiwentang has since been indefinitely blocked, but past behavior suggests that this may do little to deter him/her from posting unargued little complaints on this talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hoary, for the clarification. And there was me, assuming good faith! Bluewave (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And is it now sensible to revert the article back to how it looked before Yiwentang started multiple edits on 3 August? Bluewave (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's worthless, true. However, I'd leave it, in order to help people know what's going on when the next reincarnation of Yiwentang arrives here, huffing and puffing. -- Hoary (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant the article itself, rather than the stuff on this page. Bluewave (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, sorry: you clearly said "article". I've looked at it and while I haven't reverted it I hope I've made it less awful. It needs a lot more work (and abridgement), however. ¶ As for this section of this talk page, I recommend that we suppress it via the HAT and HAB templates (see Talk:Barack Obama, passim). -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't heard of HAT and HAB but they look useful for this page. I was conscious that, in Yiwetang's zealous addition of "citation needed" tags, he/she actually broke or deleted some of the existing citations. I repaired a couple of these but thought a reversion would ensure that nothing else had been broken. However, it looks like you've done a good job of tidying the article. Bluewave (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Hamsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Hamsters. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hamsters&oldid=1257861592"