Talk:Hey, Hey, It's the Monkees

Plot Deletion
I'm curious as to why the entire description of what this show is actually about has been removed from the overview section. Considering that the Monkees' last on-screen special was a variety show and that it had been nearly 30 years since they appeared together, it makes sense to note that this was presented in the format of their original series.

I propose that the plot description be replaced or restored. --Sm5574 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm restoring it. The description of this being a "variety" special is inaccurate anyway. --Sm5574 (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User: Abbythecat
User Abbythecat has repeatedly made the same unreferenced edits to the plot description, even going to far as the remove properly referenced material. I will report the user if they do so again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm5574 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (Note: the following text was in response to a section that has since been removed.) --Sm5574 (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't about people thinking for themselves. The special is CLEARLY presented as an episode of the series. That's not to say it's officially an episode of the series, but it is absolutely, unquestionably, undeniably presented as such, and we have two independent sources stating as much. You don't get to override that just because you don't like it. I am not making petty, juvenile changes on here (e.g., adding "Not" at the start of the section), nor am I making any statements that aren't backed up by sources or by even the most cursory glance at the program. It is not a variety show; it is not a retrospective; it is a fictional show in the style of the original series with the Monkees playing their fictional TV personalities.


 * Your arguments about distribution are not valid, because the owner of the special is ABC. Rhino owns all Monkees media from the mid-1980s, when they bought the catalog, and they own anything produced by Rhino since then. Since ABC created the special after Rhino made the purchase, ABC owns the rights. Rhino did not have the rights to include the production in their DVD or Blu-Ray releases of the series, which is why both 33 1/3 and HEAD were included in their collections but the 1997 special was not. So it is a moot point in that regard.


 * But again, it's irrelevant because we have two independent, valid sources that do claim it was presented as an episode of the TV series. You will need to cite a valid source that claims otherwise, and then we can discuss how to word it in the article. But two valid sources are enough for it to appear in the article, per Wikipedia rules.--Sm5574 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Valid Source
It's time to stop the debate. There is no uncertainty for anyone willing to see the facts. We now have a valid source that confirms the special was presented as a new episode of the series. Even the most cursory glimpse of the show makes that fact undebatable. (Yes, I know that would be considered original research; my point is merely that there is absolutely no grounds for saying otherwise.) I am undoing the most recent change, and any further changes in this regard MUST be presented on this talk page first and accompanied by a valid source CLEARLY stating otherwise. That is how Wikipedia works. --Sm5574 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to the scene in the special where they give a specific episode number the special is supposed to be, and Micky talks about their show still being in production despite being off the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24UvATtOUjU&t=42m50s. It isn't a matter of opinion, and there is little room for debate.--Sm5574 (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

i'm trying to be respectful
Abbythecat (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Sm5574, Wikipedia does not list you as having a users page. There's also nothing for you when I hit talk. I noticed one of your submissions was unsigned. You didn't respect me (nor anyone on Wikipedia) when you said we shouldn't think for ourselves (!), but I'm trying to respect you anyway. I don't know who you are. Could you tell me if you really work for Wikipedia? I deleted your portion of the article that used a fanzine for a reference. I don't think Wikipedia allows for fan material to be referenced. I might be wrong. Please keep in mind, though, that if Wikipedia does allow fanzines for reference sources, I have a fanzine that debunks your fanzine. It's an entire issue of MONKEES HQ devoted to the ABC special, the summer 1997 special. The author states that it is not an episode of the TV series (calling it "a show WITHIN a show, not a real episode") and there are interviews with noted people that support this (Sylvester, Nesmith, Jones). I also think it's funny that the part in the special that you cite that is (illegally) on Youtube is one of the very things that the HQ fanzine uses as proof that it isn't an episode (Micky saying 'our show' ... characters in a show don't know they are such ... real actors do -- and no, this isn't my opinion, it's from one of the (many) HQ quotes). Again, you mention it isn't on the blu-ray set because it isn't legally an episode; exactly correct, you've proven my point (yes, this is also from quotes from the HQ fanzine). I hope this ends this. If not, I'll take it to Wikipedia and let them decide, after I've added my fanzine source section, of course. With respect. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This really, really needs to stop. You need to stop deleting stuff. That is NOT how Wikipedia works. If you question the validity of the source, then take it up with Wikipedia. But considering the fact that we have two sources that back each other up, good luck with that. In the meantime, I am ONCE AGAIN going to revert your deletion, and "respectfully" insist that you STOP deleting material and instead ADD properly referenced material that refutes what is already there. None of this adding "not" before it and other silly shenanigans. Instead of trying to be respectful, just start being mature.


 * And again, just watch the special. Just watch it. They CLEARLY state in the special that it is supposed to be taken as an episode of the original series. They even give it an episode number. It isn't a "show within a show" or whatever, it's just a show. Just watch it. And if you still can't bring yourself to see what every single reviewer on IMDB sees, then fine. Post your rebuttal. But again, do so IN ADDITION to what is already there. You're the one who's all about letting people make up their own minds, so why should there be a problem with having two different interpretations of the show, particularly if they are referenced? --Sm5574 (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop Deleting Stuff
Users are not supposed to go about deleting significant material in an article without first discussing it on the talk page (discussing, as in a conversation back and forth until an agreement is reached). In this case, there is disagreement over the nature of the show. That is fine. We have two sources that say the same thing. That is enough, then, for that interpretation of the show to be included in the article. If a user disagrees with that interpretation AND can find a source backing them up, then they can add NEW material based on that source. Simply deleting material that you disagree with is NOT in the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

Also, it should go without saying (but apparently does not) that nothing should ever be deleted from the Talk page (except, perhaps, for highly inappropriate material, such as obscenities and what not). This page is the journal of why the article evolved in the way that it has. Yes, there is a history, but that is cumbersome to traverse. Since the Talk page is for discussion of opinion, there is no reason to delete from this page, so please do not do so. --Sm5574 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)I have asked a Wikipedia editor to resolve this. Please do not write me again. I am tired of you insulting me, threatening me, talking down to me, and trying to get me involved with illegal activities such as the Youtube video that is not legal. I will not respond to you again. Abbythecat (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Do what you feel you must. My quarrel has only ever been that you follow Wikipedia guidelines, and you have done so. I have no further dispute with you. --Sm5574 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I AM EDITING THIS PAGE.
Abbythecat (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)I am editing this page. I am deleting incorrect data. If anyone at Wikipedia objects, they can restore it. I am 'being bold'. I'm also tired of the rude bully on this talk page. After this editing 'war' began I got an e-mail that threatened me if I didn't leave this Wikipedia page alone. If I am threatened again I will contact the proper authorities. I will not be bullied and threatened into silence. I am giving notice here that I'm making the edits now. (BTW, I've had MANY edits I made deleted without being notified or without any discussion on talk pages -- just recently an edit I made on the THEN CAME BRONSON page vanished, and I've never been notified about it, nor was it mentioned on the talk page). Abbythecat (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no war except what you are creating. Wikipedia is intended to be collaborative, but you refuse to make it so. And yes, people who violate the policies of an organization are generally threatened with being reported. If trying to enforce the rules through proper channels is "bullying" then so be it. But you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to delete content that is properly referenced and that others clearly disagree about it being deleted. You have posted your own documented material. It should be enough to leave it at that. Refusal to do so is antagonism on your part, not anyone else's.


 * By the way, the latest reversion was not done by me. --Sm5574 (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Will someone please explain to me what the problem is? There seems to be a content dispute that one editor is extremely distraught about, and that editor thinks that they are being bullied and threatened.  I don't see any threats or bullying, but maybe I don't know where to look.  Will someone, either the distraught editor who says that they are being bullied, or another editor please explain what the conflict is?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, there have been warnings that one editor will delete "incorrect data". Do they mean on this talk page, or on the article page?  Please do not delete data from an article page without a reason; since there isn't consensus, deletion of material from the article page should be discussed here.  Material should not be deleted from this talk page or any talk page except in accordance with talk page guidelines; in most cases, removing data from a talk page is disruptive editing and may lead to sanctions.  Where is the "incorrect data"?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The primary issue involves material that I have posted in the article, stating that the television special was presented as a new episode of the 1960s Monkees TV series. User Abbythecat is convinced that the special was not presented in such a way and has consistently removed any mention I make of that, even when I have referenced the claim. Such deletions have not been preceded by discussion, and my pleas to add data rather than delete have been met with such responses as adding "Not" at the beginning of a paragraph (as in, "NOT presented as an episode..."). References to removing "incorrect data" are related to that, as far as I understand. I have repeatedly complained to this user that such actions are not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and that I would report continued actions to the appropriate Wikipedia personnel. I believe this is what the user is referring to as threats and bullying.--Sm5574 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue involving the Talk page is simply that there were large swaths of verbiage on this page which have been deleted, causing non-deleted sections to appear out of context. To the best of my knowledge, no one has deleted anything posted by another user.--Sm5574 (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I should note that user Abbythecat did, eventually, add text in the Development section about her claims. However, this user soon deleted the entire section, but that action was undone by another user. And that is how the section appears now.--Sm5574 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Sm5574. That is more or less what I thought.  User:Abbythecat - Please state what the problem is.  You have been warned several times.  Also, please read the competence essay.  At this point, I can't figure out what you are complaining about, and it is beginning to seem that you may simply be an editor who can't work collaboratively.  Please explain what the problem is, or we will conclude that you are the problem.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Abbythecat (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)If Mr. McClenon is content with the way the article page currently looks, I will abide by his decision. I will not pursue this matter. I have contributed to Wikipedia for 7 years. I am logged in. I have a talk page. I have a user's page. I have contributed many edits. I have created pages. I have supported Wikipedia. I do not respect anyone who insults me (I consider a rude tone insulting, we all have are feelings hurt in different ways). I am not stupid enough to think that my getting a threatening e-mail that refers to this topic is not from the only person involved in this. I'll not pursue legal action unless this continues. My Wikipedia record speaks my loyalty. If all I have done for Wikipedia is not enough for me to be supported now, then perhaps it is time I resign. I cannot express how sad I feel about this; I feel great sorrow. But as I said, I'll not pursue this. In fact, this is probably the last time I will ever communicate with Wikipedia. I have had so many edits I made deleted without any discussion on talk pages, and without any notifications of any kind over the last 7 years that I can't count them all. Why does this rule apply to someone who is not even registered with Wikipedia but not to me? It no longer matters. I'll not bother anyone ever again. Goodbye. Abbythecat (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never sent an email to any user on Wikipedia. I don't even know how one would go about doing so. All my attempts at discussion have been on the site.--Sm5574 (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a feature that is available for many users called "Email This User". Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see two problems. There is a content dispute.  I haven't tried to look into the details of the content dispute.  I originally became very marginally involved when User:Sm5574 filed a request for dispute resolution, but there were two problems with it.  First, there hadn't been adequate prior discussion, and, second, it appeared more focused on conduct than content.  In any case, I didn't have any more involvement for about two months, until User:Abbythecat asked for my help.  Second, Abbythecat is raising concerns about rudeness, insults, bullying, and threats.  I haven't seen any rudeness, insults, bullying, or threats on-wiki.  To be sure, I don't see warnings about questionable edits as threats or as bullying.  If Abbythecat has been receiving hostile emails, I haven't seen them.  I don't know what sort of support she is saying that Wikipedia owes her.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Abbythecat writes: "I am not stupid enough to think that my getting a  threatening e-mail that refers to this topic is not from the only person involved in this."  I can't parse that.  I don't know what it means.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Abbythecat - You write: "My Wikipedia record speaks my loyalty."  No, it doesn't.  I am sorry if we are losing an editor, but something is wrong here.  I still am not sure what the problem is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup of Disputed Section
Regardless of the dispute here, the additions by Abbythecat need a bit of cleanup. I'm creating a new section for the competing claims. Since I have no way of verifying the publications Abbythecat has quoted, I will proceed with the assumption that they are true and accurate.--Sm5574 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and apology.
Abbythecat (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)I'd like to apologize and say thank you to both Sm5574 and Robert McClenon. The page looks much better now. I'm not editing it again. I got carried away and I'm sorry. You both are correct in that I'm not any good at editing Wikipedia. In fact, I'm not much good at anything. I don't know why I ever thought I was accomplishing anything. Mr. McClenon is right, my record with Wikipedia is a disloyal disgrace. I'm just an elderly disabled nobody. I am not angry at anyone. I am grateful to you both. I'm just no good at this, so I'm resigning. Again, thanks to you both, and I'm truly sorry that I bothered you. Goodbye.Abbythecat (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

i cleaned this page up
Davymickymikepeter (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) I cleaned this page up. It read like a fan piece. Useless scenes were described. So much was written about this minor special that only aired once 22 years ago. It came in #72 in the ratings. There are adults today born after this special aired. It's never been on home video. It's so minor I'd like to see it deleted. The previous page for it went on forever. I've seen less written on Wikipedia for movies and entire TV series. I meant no offense by doing this, but I got a message and I guess someone is upset about it. I was told to undo my edits but I cannot do this as whenever I try it says the edits can't be undone. Sorry about all this. But I think the page looks better now. If the page can't be deleted, then I hope it remains the way I've edited it. Wikipedia isn't a place for fan raving. It's about facts and information. We don't need 'fan-boys' (or 'fan-girls') drooling about weeny bopper teen idols here. You can do that on several Monkees sites. Again, I'm not being mean, I hope nobody gets angry. But this is much ado about nothing. Of course Wikipedia can restore the old page if it wants. Fine by me. DavymickymikepeterDavymickymikepeter (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davymickymikepeter (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)  Sorry I forgot to sign this. I did now.
 * Thank you for bringing this up for discussion. Since I was involved in the previous round of edits, I will go back and try to remain faithful to the reason we had them, as well as taking your concerns into account. You make a valid point that it was a long article for something relatively minor, but a case could also be made that since it is so rare there's not really much other opportunity for people to learn about it. But as I said, I will do my best to shorten it. --Sm5574 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Davymickymikepeter (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)It looks much better, thank you! DavymickymikepeterDavymickymikepeter (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)