Talk:Atlantic Records/Archive 1

Label history
Obviously, there's a lot more about the label's history to be included here. One thing in particular that I'd personally like to see is the warehouse fire in which a lot of master recordings were destroyed. I don't know much about the fire, myself, other than the fact that it happened (I believe it was during the 1970s). I'll try and dig up more about it when I have time; maybe someone else will beat me to it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There really needs to be a LOT more here about the history of Atlantic Records. Atlantic was crucial in the growth and spread of R&B and in the opening up of black artists to larger white audiences from the late '40's well into the 60's. It's unbelievabls that there's no mention here that such great stars as Joe Turner, Ruth Brown, Ray Charles, Otis Redding, Aretha Franklin, and so many more were Atlantic artists.

What about Jerry Wexler, Stax Records, etc.?
KarenAnn 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism coming?
I'd watch this page... expect to see "YOU SUCK" on it, just like "Weird Al" Yankovic types in the "White & Nerdy" video...

lol, yeah, it is to be expected. --doshindude


 * It's already been semi-protected. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno.
.. "Weird Al" fans are not that stupid. --pmppk 16:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

When anything, be it Stephen Colbert, "Weird Al", or Stingrays cause some sort of need for people to garner attention, they will edit Wikipedia. If I somehow convinced some TV Personality to say "Edit Wikipedia", then the mindless masses that want attention will do just that. Always be on the lookout for potential causes for vandalism, and jump it with a protection, I think. 65.96.103.25 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * no, our semiprotection policy (WP:SPP) states: Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred Borisblue 02:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was wrong. But we should all be on the lookout for the next fad-edits, if nothing else. 65.96.103.25 07:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's someone who's just so White and Nerdy who's vandalising it. BURN!!! BNLfan53 Wednesday, 2006-09-20 T 02:39 UTC


 * Should there really be a picture? Mentioning the incident is okay, but this just seems like skating a bit too close to WP:BEANS, especially since it hasn't even been released officially yet. Crystallina 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The video by "Weird Al" has this page getting replaced with a huge 'YOU SUCK', probably due to the delay of this album by Atlantic records. (see You're Pitiful and Straight Outta Lynwood). No doubt there will be imitators, though its time in the video is extremely limited. --Kevin_b_er 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How did Al get a graphical editor setup there? I'm looking at it, and it's standard Wikipedia TXT only... am I being a noob again? -K2JMan 04:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Probability states it's likely to be a screen edit, as opposed to an actual UI. --130.194.13.104 05:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If this edit never actually happened (in the time frame when the video was being created), then List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia probably ought to be updated. Anyone have data? -- nae'blis 23:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really, this could be constituted as encouraging people to vandalise Wikipedia. (even if it's likely just to be a joke at Atlantic Record's expense) --130.194.13.104 02:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's CGI (i.e. Weird Al faked it), and he has very good reasons to accuse Atlantic of sucking. So when his fans are honest, they too think AR sucks.

It just got edited again, with another "You Suck!"195.64.95.116 14:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

he could have opened edit page typed it and just not saved the change when done. when i first saw the video i tryed freeze framing it on that frame but couldnt read the page name but after reading about it on Weird Al i freeze framed again and could bearly make out the pages title --Cleverca22 09:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

it looks like THIS page is being vandalized too! --filter1987 12:47, 1 October 2006


 * LOL @ Wikipedia --  NERD42 [mailto:nerd42@gmail.com EMAIL ]  TALK  H2G2 UNCYC NEWS   00:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I still can't believe that this is STILL protected... kinda funny, really. A half a second bit of a parody's music video has basically permanately closed this section of Wikipedia.

I can believe its still protected, because I was kind of hoping to open a "YOU SUCK!!!" section where folks sign up if they, like     me, would like to make fun of Atlantic Records for no reason other than their bad sense of humor. I guess editing the "editing  talk" page so they have to protect the "editing talk" page will have to do.....  for now.....  Anyone know a hacker?

For everyone thinking about doing this vandalism, see what I just did in the sandbox:. That should satisfy everyone. &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making that sandbox edit. If anyones reading this, could you go to so you can sign the YOU SUCK! petition?


 * I found this page by rewinding the video a few times until I could see Atlantic Records on it. He's using a real screen shot on a Macintosh, but the big "YOU SUCK" is in the edit window, so it was probably photoshopped onto it. There's no way to actually make it displayed like that. Damn that video is freakin' hilarious. Cuñado  [[image:Bahaitemplatestar.png|20px]] -  Talk  04:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It already has been vandilized a couple times, just like in the video: Example A Example B Jake   (talk)  14:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to vandalize Wikipedia, do so in your own sandbox like I did. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep this page protected until airplay of the "White & Nerdy" video ceases and the next single off of Weird Al's new album is released. --GVOLTT 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How's this: pick a day in which the content of the page is replaced by a picture of the giant "YOU SUCK". Protect it so it can't be "corrected", and then leave it on for a full day (24 hours) before reverting it. After that, block everyone who vandalizes the page indefinitely. Viewer 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If that was done, then people who actually want to look up information on Atlantic Records (especially beginning Wikipedians) would be out of luck and unfair for them (unless they search through the history). Doing that would go against the spirit of Wikipedia. --GVOLTT 14:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to request that we mention the massive amounts of vandalism caused by that video on the main pageCylonhunter 17:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was moved to You're Pitiful and White & Nerdy for a reason. See WP:ASR and WP:BEANS. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Lmao, this "You suck!" stuff if freaking funny.

I've looked at the history of this page and I've seen a substantial amount of vandalism. To end this once and for all, is it possible to just completely block the editing of this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.193.186.245 (talk • contribs).


 * No, it's not. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that anyone can update an article.  --Chris (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that this immaturity is not ceasing anytime soon.The vandalism has continued and there is no end in sight.I know that some registered users have been blocked permanently for doing this repeatedly.Not only that,it was funny when "Weird Al" Yankovic did it in his White & Nerdy video but on Wikipedia,it has gone stale.It's not even funny anymore.It is now just "plain boring" and it doesn't have any laugh factors attributed to it any more.I mean,a joke is a joke but even jokes,such as this one,can go stale over time if it is done repeatedly.The amusement factor gets lost and when that happens,it gets boring and it's not even amusing anymore.So why keep repeating the same old joke?It as much nonsense as the vandalism that is being perpetrated on the article.Does anyone agree with this?If so,I want to hear from all of you.

The only way to stop it is to restore FULL protection to the article,but permanently.That way,only administrators can edit it and the article is safe.It is the only way to stop the immature vandals and the trouble they cause by their vandalism.Just an idea.

Thanks for any thoughts.Frschoonover 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed the words THEY SUCK from the history section of this article.Apparently,this is not going to stop anytime soon.FYI,the user that placed the words THEY SUCK on the article is a user named Kusanagi123.The user is apparently new.Again,I removed those words from the article and I have placed the user's name here.I hope that it does some good.Frschoonover 19:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that edit
Thought I pressed "Show Preview"

Was this left by Kusanagi123?If so,why didn't you leave your name?You are supposed to leave your name when you post a comment.It is just Wikipedia policy.If you do not know how,just use 4 tides,which are on the left of the number 1 on the keyboard and by pressing shift for what's above,and your user name will appear on the page automatically.By the way,regarding that edit,if it was accidental,your apology is accepted.I advise you to watch what you press the next time you want to experiment with edits.Just a little friendly advice because I do not want to see you get into trouble here nor do I want to see you banned from editing.Thanks for clearing that up.Frschoonover 02:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what happened, but I know I've accidentally deleted my recycle bin off my desktop at least two times. Or god, what if the person has Parkinson's or something--that would suck because maybe they can't help it. I wonder if Wikipedia would ban someone from editing if they had a hand tremor or a prosthetic limb. 67.42.14.57 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
While admitting to being somewhat out of touch with what goes on out there in the real world, apart from daily tallies of killings, etc. etc., am dismayed to see such a large amount of space (both on this discussion page and on the article page) devoted to such a ridiculous (let's just leave it at that) issue/publicity stunt. As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, as yet unaware of any existing built-in mechanisms for content control, might I humbly suggest that in the interest of serious analysis any polemic content be reserved for the discussion page with a possible flag in the trivia/miscellaneous section on the article page? (With the possibility of including it in the main body of the article at a future date and following whatever Wiki-philosophy criteria apply) Keep up the good work - Wikipedia is great!.83.191.78.139 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Possibly with an internal link from the See also section.83.191.78.139 13:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd call the "YOU SUCK!" thing a publicity stunt? I agree that the Atlantic Records article itself has overshadowed the content about the actual record company, though.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Record Company of Weird Al
Sorry about replacing the page with "The Record Company of Weird Al". My little brother did that, not realizing the seriousness. Naaj 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Give your little brother a raise Roadhockey 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request (temporary) page protection
Can I make a suggestion?...Actually I've already made it, I'll just elaborate on it:

As it stands, this article is being vandalised by users as per "Weird Al" Yankovic's White & Nerdy clip, and, after seeing the edit history, it doesn't look like dying done for some time. I suggest that ythe article be fully protected until the song has passed, then the protection be lifted. For the period of the protection, all edit suggestions can be filtered through this talk page. --JB Adder | Talk 10:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No you can't. Roadhockey 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Only administrators should be able to edit this page. Every day the article is changed to you suck! That's sorry...--Douglas Bradford Oliver 20:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

@Douglas Bradford Oliver: That's why you should protect it.

I think that semi-protection should be fine for now. Yes there is a lot of vandalism, but as long as there are many of us watching it, it can be corrected within a few minutes (even quicker if a bot catches it). Full protection would make it difficult for legitimate edits as the administrators most likely do not monitor this page on a regular basis. --WillMcC 17:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the level of vandalism doesn't warrant full protection as of January 2007, but admins do monitor the category that editprotected puts talk pages into. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed an increase in the amount of vandalism now that the page has been un-protected so that unregistered people can vandalize the page as well. What was the motivation behind this? --WillMcC 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why cant this article be edited?
I noticed a factual errorr, the most sucessful rock band on the label was Led Zeppelin not STP, not to mention the sentence proclaiming that doesn't even end in a period. Why can't I edit this page?


 * Alas, a severe attack of persistant vandalism (apparently mostly by kiddies who've seen a Weird Al video but lack the intelligence to understand it) has affected this article. Please put suggested article improvements here on the talk page. (Personally, I'd prefer softer protection with liberal use of blocks on anyone logged in who vandalizes anyway.) Thanks, -- Infrogmation 03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You've got Weird Al to blame for it. (see above)

As long as it's brought up on this page, it should get fixed by an admin --WillMcC 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've softened the protection; you should be able to edit it now. If not, put suggested changes here. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect
I've rewritten the commented warning at the top of the page and after a week of full protection moved to softer semi-protection. I'd tend to suggest treating any logged in user vandalizing this page the same way as deliberate vandalism to any other page by a logged in user. Comments or suggestions of other ways of dealing with it welcome. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the user has made positive contributions and just wants to have a little fun or make a statement.... then a warning, and only a warning, should be given. Randomfrenchie 04:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that we have a tradition of holding logged in users to somewhat higher standard than random anons waundering in, and that this is one of the few pages that actually has an additional warning right on the page when one edits it. -- Infrogmation 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

weird al
Did "Weird Al" really valdlize this page, or is that just in the video? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.193.166 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC).


 * It was just in the video. Some graphics effects were used to make the text --WillMcC 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He had a real edit box open, he just didn't save his changes! Good man. Radagast 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted another attempt to vandalise the page, but I haven't seen the video, where can I see it?--Shakujo 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * White & Nerdy links to a copy of the video uploaded to YouTube by user "weirdal". The scene in question is at 1:49. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention he wasn't logged in. --BlooWilt 22:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Return to full protection
What was the reason for returning the article to full protection? There has been some vandalism, but averaging less than one a day since it was returned to semiprotection, and the article seems well watched with such vandalism reverted quickly. -- Infrogmation 13:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully protected this as a preventative measure against vandalism from these accounts that are getting past semiprotection. It came from a request at WP:RPP. I also did recomend that the people that watch this page file a checkuser request to get some underlying IP's blocked in the meantime. I would probably wait about 5-7 days before going back to semiprotection, or at least until a checkuser has been able to determine if some underlying IPs can be blocked to stop all the serial vandalism. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Six acts of vandalism in a week - of which two seem to have been reverted by the vandals - doesn't seem the "nothing but vandalism" mentioned on WP:RPP. -- Beardo 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for protecting this article from vandalism and riff-raff. I've read in a few news articles that Wikipedia was testing some sort of protection method on the German Wikipedia, what is the status of that?  Citizendium already has a similar system in place right now, making it easier for editors to focus on, gasp, editing.  If a well-meaning editor wishes to contribute they can just comment here on the talk page for now.  (jarbarf) 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article should always remain fully protected. - Kevin23 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree.I had to remove vandalism one day from the article.Even after I advised the vandals not to,they still did it.Again,I agree that this article should remain under full protection indefinitely.I hope that the people in charge do so.It will save us a lot of headaches.Frschoonover 05:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The ever-increasing number of Weird Al-related vandalism led me to request full protection. --Andrewlp1991 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Full protection denied. --Andrewlp1991 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

protection?
Hey, I just wanted to go there and write YOU SUCK! here and it's not possible!! Why??? --Have a nice day. Running 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

(gniddik tsuj)


 * The article is protected for that very reason. Vandalism is not cool and can get you blocked from editing --WillMcC 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Gosh, sorry to hear you're so disappointed. If you'd like to be blocked for vandalism anyway, just ask. Your pal, the ever helpful Infrogmation 03:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't get blocked for vandalizing once, though? I'm asking this because I was also tempted to write "You Suck!!!" (But I didn't) mirageinred 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are disrupting Wikipedia you will be blocked. It is that simple.  If you think you can take advantage of the system on a technicality, you are wrong.  (jarbarf) 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's no fun!  xcryoftheafflictedx  10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Vandalising isn't cool. It's like signing your own graffiti.Pengwiin 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

sure iz..=] me + ma sis luv us sum Pretty Ricky!  (wat waz dat?) ''' 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, when the Weird Al video came out, I came here and did the YOU SUCK thing. Now that I've made more than 2000 (mostly) helpful edits, I like to forget it ever happened. :] Superior1 08:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh! It seems that the majority of recent edits made to this page are Weird Al-related. I think this page needs full protection for some time. --71.135.180.154 06:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking over the article and the silver lock that symbolizes that the article is semi-protected is missing.Is there a reason for this.I thought that the lock symbol is supposed to be on the article to illustrate that it is a semi-protected article.Can somebody give any answers?Thanks Frschoonover 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit request

 * The Wexler/Stax relationship is mentioned, though the way it is worded is misleading at best. The way it reads now, it implies that Jerry Wexler ran and/or founded Stax Records, which is incorrect.  Even the cited source states it differently (i.e., correctly). As an admin, I'm technically able to make the correction, but since the article is protected, I assume I should not make an edit on behalf of myself.  So then, in the "History" section, I'm requesting that the following sentence:
 * "In 1960, Atlantic began a distribution relationship with a recording enterprise in Memphis, Tennessee, spearheaded by Jerry Wexler which became Stax Records."
 * ...be replaced with this code:
 * Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PPOL, this edit requires consensus. Any objections? Also, consider a unprotection request. Sandstein 06:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gone forward and incorporated the change, as no one has objected since this was requested five days ago. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Return to semi-protection
I think this has been under full hard protection a rather long time. I propose returning it to semi-protection, and will do so if there are no serious objections. -- Infrogmation 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's back to being semi-protected now, but the vandalism continues... - Kevin23 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just found that a user added a "hidden text" warning to the page against vandalism. I doubt that'll work, as I think it's the same as responding to a spam email pretty much. In June, someone tried adding a similar type of warning; it got removed. I'm just asking for permission before I remove the warning. Thanks! Oh, and by the way, where is the help page that specifically points out how to insert "hidden text" in Wikipedia articles, the kind of stuff you can see only in the "source code" section of a page? --Andrewlp1991 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Country music
I didn't see any need to clutter up the sentence, but if anyone needs a source for the reference to Atlantic Records releasing country music, in 1950 they released the single "Why Do I Cry Over You?" by Bill Haley and His Saddlemen, and a reproduction of the label can be found in the Haley box set Rock 'n' Roll Arrives by Bear Family Records. It would be interesting to find out whether this was the only country single released by the label as I know of no others (though I believe they did issue some rockabilly recordings later so I guess those count). 23skidoo 19:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Atlantic Label design in the days of vinyl
Not an officitionardo of Atlantic but to those who are. I can remember Atlantic records (at least in the uk) back in the 70s when they still used paper labels on albums and singles (as opposed to printed direct onto the record). While the overall design of the atlantic label was uniform, they used 2 different colour schemes on the label. Some artists were released on a blue and orange label while others green and orange but I never found out if there was any significance in this. Dondilly 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This URL, as far as American issues is concerned, is a good start for LPs: Steelbeard1 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Move List of artists to new article
I propose that the list of Atlantic Records recording artists be spun off to a separate "List of..." article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Atlantic's biggest mainstream rock success could be found in the Stone Temple Pilots" ... really? Bigger than Led Zeppelin? -- Rsfinn 04:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Media references
In June 2006, "Weird Al" Yankovic released a parody of James Blunt's hit "You're Beautiful" via the internet (but not on his album Straight Outta Lynwood) called "You're Pitiful". The song is only available for download because even though Blunt gave Yankovic permission to record the song, he is signed with Custard Records (distributed by Atlantic Records), and Atlantic denied permission for the song's album release. Yankovic's record label, Volcano Records, decided not to "go to war" with Atlantic even though they could still legally use "You're Pitiful". Later on, Al recorded some replacement songs for his album, including "White & Nerdy", a parody of "Ridin'" by Chamillionaire. In the song's video, the "nerd," played by Yankovic, is editing Wikipedia's Atlantic Records page, adding "YOU SUCK!" in big, bold letters. This is a reference to this event. This inspired a number of copy-cat vandals to put the same text in the Atlantic Records Wikipedia article numerous times. Yankovic has said that he does not approve of the vandalism, though he admits being amused by it.

Maybe this should go into another adjasent article. Mattisse(talk) 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the section more concisely, at a level of detail more appropriate for an article about a record label. You're right that the rest should be merged into the "further info" sections. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 03:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * omg he's amused by it! he doesnt beleive in his own powers! Thejakeman 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Revert for the more detailed version
How is the whole controversy not notable enough when there are people visiting every day concerning the vandilism --Chalutz 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because there is no media coverage. What legitimate newspaper cares about this happening? Gdo01 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the article White & Nerdy adequately explains the controversy. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Member of the RIAA
It should be mentioned that Atlantic Records is an RIAA member, according to —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.240.146 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Did Neshui Ertegun join Atlantic in 1955 or 1956?
The on line sources seem to be inconsistent in when Neshui Ertegun joined Atlantic Records. Even the current citation can't decide. The timeline states thet Neshui joined Atlantic on February 7, 1955. Recent news stories about Ahmet Ertegun's death say 1956. Steelbeard1 11:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Steelbeard1 and I have presented a few sources to each other, some that give Nesuhi's date of joining Atlantic in 1955 and some in 1956:


 * 1955
 * http://www.bsnpubs.com/atlantic/atlanticstory.html
 * 1955 and 1956 (???)
 * http://www.rockhall.com/inductee/nesuhi-ertegun
 * 1956
 * http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-12-14-ahmet-ertugun_x.htm
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/arts/music/14cnd-ertegun.html?ex=1323752400&en=1a3048af7bb6cf84&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


 * Any more sources or thoughts on this issue are welcome. We may have to change the article to actually say it's disputed when he joined.  --Chris (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can ask someone at http://www.carlinamerica.com which is headed by Freddy Bienstock, husband of Miriam who was the Atlantic Records business manager at that time. Steelbeard1
 * That would be fine if their response got published in a reliable source. --Chris (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My argument for using 1956 is based on the four sources presented. The two that claim 1956 are reliable newspapers.  The one that claims 1955 appears to be the website of a small publishing group... not really sure.  The color scheme is horrific though. :)  The other source conflicts itself; the text claims 1956 while the timeline lists a specific date in 1955.
 * Given these points and considering WP:RS I would argue that the date we should use is 1956. I am, of course, welcome to other opinions and I'm not going to revert the article again.  (An edit war is exactly what we don't need.)  --Chris (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Full protection
When I try edit edit only semi-protected pages it says "view source" as if I was an anoymous IP editor.--Dummmmmmy 21:36, 11 Septetmber 2007 (UTC) Superscript text
 * You must be an existing user for at least four days before you can edit semi-protected pages. --Chris (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Atlantic Records.png
Image:Atlantic Records.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Added requested formal fair use rationale. Steelbeard1 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Full protection?
I am starting to think it might be time to fully protect this article form editing untill "White and Nerdy" becomes just another song... Quite a large chunk of edits are vandalism and do not contribute. All the other edits seem to be reverting vandals. I believe that it's time for Wikipedia to fully protect an article that is not going anywhere. Javascap 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the bozos have been seriously taking a public dump on an important article on music history that energy would better be spent on improving, but on the plus side this article has been a dandy flytrap for identifying accounts created primarily or only for vandalism, and is so well watched that the vandalism generally reverted very quickly. I therefore support leaving it at semi-protected for now. -- Infrogmation 18:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree sprot is better for now. — xaosflux  Talk  13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree; the "YOU SUCK!" mayhem still continues, and, judging from the number of wannabes who mimic Alfred Yankovic's joke revision, and the full protection imposed on Vannesa Hudgens' page at one time (because of persistent vandalism), a full article lock is necessary... Blake Gripling 09:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The protection level is fine where it is. The current amount of vandalism is perfectly manageable, and users are making constructive edits in between.  Full protection would be harmful to the quality of this article, not beneficial.  --Chris (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that full protection would be harmful. Most users are not sysops, and many, many non-sysops are valuable contributors of specialised, high-quality article material. This could be a good article with a bit of improvement.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)