Talk:Steam (band)

White Sox
The White Sox own crap. If you think that they "started" the "tradition" of using this song in sporting venues, you haven't gone very far out of Chicago. User:66.41.160.66 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're A-NONE, so you don't deserve a response... however, I invite you to cite evidence to the contrary. Wahkeenah 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * More specifically, Nancy Faust says she started playing it in 1977, that it was her own idea. Now, you need to find evidence of someone else playing it for the same purpose, earlier, and which caught the fan's fancy the way Faust's rendition did. Wahkeenah 22:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know why "Na Na Na Na..." isn't played at Wrigley Field. MojaveNC 06:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's a Sox thing. It would be like the Red Sox playing "Let's Go Yankees" or whatever. Wahkeenah 14:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Article edited to explain that, and scare-quotes removed. MojaveNC 08:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The statement "The song is still strongly associated with the White Sox." is unverifiable, lacking notability and is expressed in the POV of only those whom may live within the Chicago region. It is neither important, nor meaningful to the article about this musical group. Ste4k 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Wahkeenah 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed: "The song is still strongly associated with the White Sox." This statment requires references. Please provide verifiability before moving it back to the article. Thanks. Ste4k 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the article cited above. Wahkeenah 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I see the problem you're getting at. I rephrased it. Wahkeenah 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Political Demonstrations
Na Na Hey Hey is also sung at political events when demonstrating against an opposing candidate (usually one who is losing in the opinion polls).

In 1988, at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ, Republican protesters sang Na Na Hey Hey (several times) when Democratic Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis visited the campus.

69.136.79.120 05:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Revisions
To the anonymous editor 152.163.100.67, You have reverted my edits to the article Steam (band). I believe that I have added important information with references. If you could, please explain why you are removing my edits. Thank you. --Fortheloveofhampsters 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This continuing pointless set of reversions and re-reversions is brought to you by Internet Ping-Pong.net. Wahkeenah 01:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

(Remove sarcasm, personal attack, slander, etc.) - Cooperstown77

No need to contact an administrator. There I reverted it back to the previous version. RomeoVoid 19:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Romeovoid, Please read comments that I left on your userpage. I would like to come to a consensus on the contents of this article. I believe that the present form (I just revised it) indicates the basic information and is verifiable. I believe your version has some very interesting content and could be included. However, the article does need to indicate that Gary DeCarlo was the lead singer of "Na Na Hey Hey" in the 1969 45 and LP.--Fortheloveofhampsters 14:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article
Okay, first I'd like to say that I'm not familiar with the band, only with the song (and that as a cover) so I don't have any view on how "correct" this article is - however, it seems that it contains a lot of speculative or POV type statements, e.g.


 * the song became a surprise smash hit

Surprising to whom?


 * Fans began singing along, and playing the song during sporting events gradually became a tradition.

Source on this?

The discography section also needs cleanup to bring it into line with the manual of style and other band articles. Cheers. QmunkE 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear QmunkE, I have worked on getting better sources for this article. Do you have any examples for the Discography?--Fortheloveofhampsters 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Already done! STLOUCS --71.247.103.15 21:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss these revisions
Dear STLOUCS [User:71.247.103.15], Could we please discuss why you changed the article so that it does not indicate who the lead singer of the original recordings of "Na Na Hey Hey" was? I am hoping that you were acting in good faith, hoping to improve the article. However, there has been a problem on this and a related but now deleted article [Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott)]. The latter article implied that Greg commented out for privacy was the lead singer of "Na Na Hey Hey", although there is clearly no evidence that this is so. (The person(s) supporting the Greg commented out for privacy claim could not give any evidence other than the artist's own website and references to Mr. commented out for privacy  on some other musician's websites. They also were banned from editing because of repeated vandalism. Now the person(s) supporting the version of the Steam article is also leaving threatening messages on my userpage.) I revised the Steam article to clarify who the lead singer was as well as to provide reliable sources for the statements in the article. Your version does not indicate who the lead singer is although this is probably a very important piece of information given the fact that "Na Na Hey Hey" is the only reason the band Steam is notable. This may be conjecture but it seems that whoever was behind the Greg commented out for privacy article doesn't want the Steam article to mention who the real lead singer was.--Fortheloveofhampsters 23:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Billboard Book of Top 40 hits by Joel Whitburn (Watson-Guptill Publications) says exactly what my version of the article says. I don’t want to get personal here or involved with legal wrangling so whatever you are involved in please leave me out of it.  Anyone can instantly verify what I wrote through the liner notes link I have placed on the page or can look it up in the book. DeCarlo is definitely one of the three creators of the song, and conflicting versions point to him as the singer under the name Garrett Scott, etc.  I have now indicated this on the article. I do not think anyone would like to deny him credit for that even though the 1970 band and the sole follow up album, “Steam,” were instantaneous bubblegum flops!  No one involved except Leka was ever heard from again: He went on to produce REO Speedwagon!   No wonder why no one wanted to put their real names onto the record and the fictitious name of “Steam” was made up instead.   Still, the chant is fun to sing at events, and who really cares about all the minute details involved or even remembers the name(s)  of the band(s) who recorded it? It's ancient history of tertiary importance.  STLOUCS   --71.247.103.15 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear STLOUCS:

I have no legal issue with you and I do not intend to get personal either. This is about an encyclopedia article, its accuracy, verifiability, and clarity. I guess that now that you have added that DeCarlo was the lead singer, we basically have no issue with the facts of the article. However, you have removed the names of the musicians (in the first trio and in the touring band) and have removed verifiable references. I believe one of your citations will be a copyright violation. Style-wise, well that can be worked on. Your note above says, referring to DeCarlo: "conflicting versions point to him as the singer under the name Garrett Scott". You seem to think that there remains some confusion about who the lead singer of "Na Na Hey Hey". As you know, we went through that discussion with the Greg commented out for privacy article. All of the reputable sources indicate that Gary DeCarlo was the lead singer. Period. You have reverted the article three times over a 24 hour period of time. Since you are apparently new to Wikipedia, you need to be warned of the 3R rule before being blocked. I am however referring this issue for mediation.--Fortheloveofhampsters 03:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hampster, please don't have a cow over such trivial nonissues! In addition, I have found a number of reputable sources that point to others who were in the first tour group that conflict with yours. There are no copyright violations because I was only paraphrasing -- not copying.  I, too, have given very good sources including one of the published Billboard books by Joel Whitburn, and an online link to the liner notes for the reissued album stinker that anyone could click on immediately without having to pay for the book.  Like I said to you before, who really cares about who did what in such a failed entity unless, of course, you are DeCarlo or one of the touring musicians you keep on trying to list?   In that case, I would not be talking too loud because that means you have long ago faded into obscurity.  As far as mediation and THREATS to block me goes, do whatever you like because you do not scare anyone.  No one broke the three revert rule, either.  I see that you are also new so I will forgive you for that mistake.   Look at the history of the article to see for yourself.  I'll tell you what: you learn how to count, and I'll work on style a bit. The problem is that many people have crafted the article, not just me so we will have to contact every one of them if you have an issue with that.


 * Hampsters [sic], this was a fun article until you started playing around on here! That is the way sporting event fans would like to keep it, too -- FUN!  There are plenty of rant sites if you have any outside “issues”.   In the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view, though, I may consider on exactly how to add the failed 1970 touring band.  If I do, I will have to add at least one or two others, also from credible sources, and you will have a bigger band than it probably was.  Excuse me, I have to go and stick my finger down my throat right now!  Bye.  STLOUCS --71.247.103.15 05:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
If the revert war continues, I recommend you request semi-protection. Ideogram

STLOUCS, Again you ask who cares about such "a failed entity". I am not talking about the band "Steam" or the LP by the same name. The reason that Steam should have an article is the song "Na Na Hey Hey". As both of our articles indicate, the song was a hit and remains important in popular culture. So therefore, again, I am telling you that I care that the article gets it right and has references that actually mention the original musicians' names. --Fortheloveofhampsters 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the page to a previous version. If you would like to present your "reputable sources that point to others who were in the first tour group" that conflict with my version, why don't you do that on the talk page. Furthermore, I am requesting semi-protection of the page.--Fortheloveofhampsters 14:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP!
Hammer time!

First of all, I have two questions.


 * 1) Why is this article mostly about the band's "one-hit wonder" and not about the band itself? I saw where there was a previous version by User:RomeoVoid that was pretty good talking about the band and then he reverted himself.
 * 2) Why isn't most of this content, which is about the song, not the band, at the song's entry?

The way I see it, we should be fighting for why there's not more talk about the band here, not about their one hit song that already has an established article that covers pretty much the same things that this article does. That's my POV. CQJ 17:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation
Hello there! I am Cowman109 Talk from the Mediation Cabal and I'd like to see if I can help you guys out with this. First off, I'd like to state a few facts:


 * 1) We already have an article called Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye
 * 2) WP:LEAD states that The lead section should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, be written in a clear and accessible style, and should first offer the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies. All of the various points should be expanded upon later in the article, and the appropriate references provided at that point, rather than in the lead section. The length should be one to three paragraphs, depending on the length of the entire article, and should never be limited to one or two short sentences.
 * 3) The article as it stands focuses entirely on the song listed above, while the title is Steam (band).

Therefore, I'll jump right in with a compromise - how would you feel if the majority of the content concerning Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye is merged into that article, while this article remains a stub concerning the band (Hampster's version)? Cowman109 Talk 15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that someone has finally put the matter in such a clear, concise, and neutral way, how can anyone object to that? The article about the song is pretty good and would fit well on here.  My only request is that nobody involved in the dispute rewrite the article, and to be fair, that would include me. User Romeovoid has already tried this, but then he appears to have reverted the article himself. I don't understand that one! - Cooperstown77

Dear Cowman, I think your idea of merging the "Na Na Hey Hey" information into the song's article and revising Steam (band) is a good one. So long as the new Steam article clearly states who the musicians were in both the pre-Steam trio and the touring band, I'm fine with Cooperstown's suggestion that the article be written by an editor who has not been involved in the Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott) or Steam (band) editing wars. However, the editors that supported the Greg commented out for privacy article and the versions of the Steam article that did not clearly mention the lead singer have been blocked for vandalism and subsequently unregistered individuals using AOL have taken up the cause. Therefore, to be fair, I think that the person who writes the article should not be either unregistered or newly registered and that he/she be selected by you. There was someone who rewrote the article User:Derek_R_Bullamore several days ago--would he be acceptable? There was also interesting information added by User:RomeoVoid about the Chateaus, etc. that might be added.--Fortheloveofhampsters 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "Na Na Hey Hey" article indicates incorrectly that DeCarlo, Leka and Frashuer were the original "Steam". This should be clarified by whoever is revising Steam.--Fortheloveofhampsters 05:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit I'm not familiar with this band, but looking through the diffs the one by RomeoVoid does seem to focus more on the band and less than the song. How does this version of the page look to revert to, and we can work from there? We could then cut out the extensive information about the song to focus mainly on the band (references to the song can still remain, of course, as it is an important part of their history). Cowman109 Talk 14:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The dilemma is that about the only thing this group is famous for is the song. You could create sepate articles, and in about a week somebody would say, "Hey, let's merge them!" Wahkeenah 14:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we can deal with that later :). First we can work on fixing this article, and then we'll see if a merge is necessary. There does appear to be enough separate information to keep them as separate articles, though. Cowman109 Talk 14:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to going back to Romeo's version and working from there? Cowman109 Talk 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The version that you refer to is the one RomeoVoid reverted and doesn't include the detail of the band's history. It might be easier to start with the most recent version since it has most of the references aleady done. Then someone can delete the song-specific detail and can add the details of the band's history. Most of the band-related details are included in the existing references on the most recent version. However, some, like the post-Steam careers of the original trio are not to my knowledge in those references. Maybe Romeovoid would know where he obtained this information. I would be happy to do this editing but Cooperstown77 and the previous pro-Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott)editors may not be happy with that. It's up to you.--Fortheloveofhampsters 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have merged the details concerning the song to Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye to give you guys a head start, and I have addressed Hamster's concerns by incorporating some of the current references into a revised version of the article you can see here. How does that look? Cowman109 Talk 20:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds pretty good, but according to the liner notes and some other book references there was also an album entitled, "Steam," that was released in 1970 and should be added to the discography. Since this is now a scientific research article, it should be noted that DeCarlo (Scott) was not the vocalist on any of those other songs, including "I Gotta Make You Love me" which also hit the Billboard Top 100 charts (though not in the Top 40).


 * This is significant as the fact that the group was finished almost as soon as it got started! In addition, there was another member of the touring band that should be included by the name of Chris Robinson as is noted here  [] that was left off of the current proposed version of the article.


 * The only really successful musician involved was Paul Leka who also co-wrote "Green Tambourine" for the Lemon Pipers, and produced and wrote for many other highly successful artists like Harry Chapin, Gloria Gaynor, Leslie Gore, and REO Speedwagon as noted here [], here    [], and here []. There were many other references that were found in a search that took seconds, but these should suffice.


 * The one important thing about the fictitious "Steam" is the one hit song which Leka, DeCarlo and Frashuer are credited for creating in the 1960s. Like the "band," it soon died, but was later revived by baseball and other sporting events, and carried by the efforts of many other more well-known and current artists such as Bananarama over the decades. The article should clearly state this as well. – Cooperstown77


 * Hampster, it should be noted that I had nothing whatsoever to do with that article and the organized warfare (though I did visit the page afterward); therefore, I cannot be painted with the same brush. Both sides made good points, though it seems that the supporters were ignored and outnumbered. I really do not care about that article and related dispute, but I did remove personal attacks from this page. You can't get too emotional on a site that holds constantly maintaining a neutral point of view as central to its beliefs and critical to its reputation and survival. I also feel that if you want to freely accuse a real-life person of wrongdoing, publicly rebuke or demean them, etc., you should print your real life name, address, and telephone number right underneath it.  Cownman109 has given of his own time and neutrality to craft the beginnings of a new article that has the potential to be interesting and pleasing to all readers.  Shouldn't we start from that point and sing a different and sweeter tune, so to speak, leaving out all the sour notes?  There are many wonderful and capable neutral people that have made contributions to this article, and I would suggest that we let them take the reigns, perhaps follow Cowman's lead. Unfortunately, it appears that Romeovoid has been turned off already, but hopefully he will come back!  Cooperstown77

Cooperstown77,

The Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott) article was indeed a hoax. Notice that I am not saying that Mr. commented out for privacy is a hoax as I do not know who wrote the article in the first place. If this is considered a personal attack against you or any of the previous editors of this and the Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott) article, one would have to question "their" or "your" neutrality. This whole dilemma surrounding these two articles (Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott)and Steam (band)) is not due to my editing but to the ill-fated attempts of the previous editors to support an outright lie.

As for publishing my name, address and telephone number here after receiving personal attacks and threats, you must be kidding. The editors who have preceded you have not followed any rules of Wikipedia policy or etiquette and I wouldn't want to find out whether they have any respect for the American legal system.

I am sorry to have jumped to the conclusion that you were associated with the long line of everchanging editors who have popped up to defend the article Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott) and subsequently to edit Steam (band) in such a way that it was unclear who the actual lead singer(s) were. It was just the timing of your appearance, your IP address and the fact that you are not registered that made me suspicious. Again, I am sorry.

However, since you claim that you are new and not a sockpuppet of the previous editors, I would expect that you do not repeat the same pattern of the preceding editors who revert any article that clearly indicates that Gary DeCarlo (Garrett Scott) was the lead vocalist of "Na Na Hey Hey" without presenting any evidence to the contrary in the discussion pages. I would also expect that you will not vandalize my talk page or the article or make personal attacks against me. --Fortheloveofhampsters 14:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking back on your suggestions, Cooperstown77, it does look as if Leka continued to have a notable post-Steam era career. It looks as if someone intended to write a separate article about him but hasn't yet. Also, I came across a list of musicians who toured as "Steam" in 1970. (As I remember, a second line-up was needed since the tour schedule was so grueling. This Chris Robeson person was one of them, but Greg commented out for privacy (Gary Scott) was not.) The reference was not on a site that would have been acceptable for Wikipedia and I am not able to relocate it to see if I can backtrack to an encyclopedia-worthy reference. --Fortheloveofhampsters 19:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hampster, I never got to see the actual article, but as someone noted on the proposed deletion page, it was best that it would be deleted because it can give the appearance that the musician wrote it himself. No need to be angry, though, if anyone vandalized your user page that is just childish of them, and I would just ignore them. In regard to me editing, I would like to see someone else do it who was not involved in any "cyber-fencing," is neutral, and has a little flair for writing. Seems that we are well on the way, and things are shaping up nicely. Can't find too many reliable sources about all the line ups, etc., either, but perhaps what is there already is good enough and it's just not that important.  Too much information is not good, either.  On that "note," I found out that there are also other Steam bands, including  a band from Canada and their CD was also released on a major label as can be seen here [].  It will be interesting to see how someone may want to try and stick that on here too!  Cooperstown77

I don't believe that there is any need to add information about other bands named Steam. --Fortheloveofhampsters 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Information from Romeo's version have been added to the version at User:Cowman109/steam. Are there any objections to replacing this article with the content there? Cowman109 Talk 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine except for the lack of sources for some of the information. I'm still not sure about DeCarlo being a drummer for the Chateaus. (That piece of information was from Romeovoid's article) I guess I always assumed that he was a vocalist. I also can't find any information about what Dale Frasheur played. Where you put "need citation"--I'll check Bronson's Billboard book to make sure the whole story is there.--Fortheloveofhampsters 03:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, no one has responded, so I'm going to go ahead and replace the article with the one I listed up above. We'll see how things go from there! :) Cowman109 Talk 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation active?
Is this dispute still active? --Ideogram 05:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear so. I'll go ahead and close the medcab case, then. Thanks for reminding me, Ideogram :) Cowman109 Talk 15:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The combatants finally ran out of steam. Wahkeenah 15:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (Personal attack removed) Anyone can say something is in a book! And what of books, articles and liner notes that have conflicts with his references? (Personal attack removed) I just didn't like that kind of nonsense on here! As to the article itself, I was hoping for something more enthralling or intriguing, but I guess we'll have to see if anyone can improve on the current science-like article.  One falls asleep reading all the facts.  By the way, I have plenty of "steam" left! lol Cooperstown77


 * (Personal attack removed) Cooperstown77


 * Cooperstown77, eh? Let's see... what happened in Cooperstown in 1977... aha! "Let's play two!"


 * Ah, yes, that was a good one, but some of my most favorite stars were not voted in as we can see here [Baseball Hall of Fame Official Site Voting for Year 1977]!


 * If you have beliefs that he is a sockpuppet, then there are processes to follow. (WP:RFCU)However, this comment constitutes a needless personal attack that serves no purpose in improving the article. From my knowledge, Hamster merely did minor edits on the article correcting grammar and such; I created the majority of the new article by merging past content that was deemed acceptable by the contributers. Please refrain from such accusations in the future and instead explain whatever specific issues you have with the article here instead of talking about the contributer as opposed to the content. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Touchy touchy, Cowman! There was no "attacks," only facts, and anyone can go onto the history page of this article to see what you have arbitrarily removed. I could revert your edits endlessly, but I think the point was already made. In addition, I believe that you may be trying to act in "good faith," and your statements weren't totally nasty.  In any event, anyone can see by clicking on Hampster's contribs tab what he was up to! There was no minor editing there! Why has he not contributed to anything else before or after?  How do you explain that?  I do not mind him wanting to get his points across, that is what this site is for, but it was not done fairly. He also uses inflammatory words like "hoax" and "lie" that he cannot completely support, but you do not edit those words and statements out.  Am I correct?  I did not edit them out myself because I do believe that Hampster needs to get something off his chest for some reason, and who would take that very seriously?  They seem to go beyond the norm around here, though.


 * Sorry if you think that I was criticizing your version of the article, you did make a good effort, but it is what it is: An entertainment-turned-science-article. I'm sure that you did the best that you could with what you were working with in trying to end any dispute.  And the "processes" to which you refer to above are total BS unless you are part of a cabal or click.  You know that very well.   If you are truly fair, why then do you not personally look into what I was saying about sockpuppetry?  I did not do so because I belong to no wiki-alliances.  Besides, it's not important enough to go through exercises in futility, and the article stands as it currently stands. Ugh!  Pepcid anyone?  Cooperstown77


 * Could you clarify what you mean by science article? Is it necessarily a bad thing that an article states the facts in a scientific manner? Also, I would recommend that you create an account so it is easier to speak with you. Then you could simply sign comments with ~ and it would automatically timestamp your signature. However, now that you mention it, I am a member of a cabal (see WP:MEDCAB) :), and thus you are right about that. However, I act as an informal mediator and I have no interest in seeking out whether one is a sockpuppet or not, and proclaiming that someone is using sockpuppets on a talk page of an article does not improve the article in any way. WP:NPA specifies that you should focus on content, and not the contributer, which was why I removed your earlier comments. It could inflame the situation further, which is why I suggest that Hamster does not reply here. You are more than willing to help us improve the article, but by making claims of sockpuppetry to me (I can do nothing about it) is not the way to go about it. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 15:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A "science article" to the average reader is borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring! If the new editors are so interested in making the article technically correct, there was more than one Steam band released on major and indy labels. In fact, one was from the late 1990's and there is a current one today, though it is more of a harder rock genre.  In fact, the original Steam "group" was non-existent, had more instrumentation on the song than the article tries to imply, and the song itself was dead as a doornail -- like the marginally talented touring band -- until the na na hook was revived by baseball in the early 70's as the original article stated.  It was BASEBALL that revived the so so song, and BASEBALL along with other sports like soccer has kept it alive until this very day! That should be placed in the article much more prominently than musicians no one has ever heard of or cares anything about.   Furthermore, no one except AARP qualified members even heard of the lame band or can even recite any of the less-than-profound words of the song except the na na hey hey good-bye hook part!  That is not in the article. Who cares about the "Chateaus," and the league of people named in the article?  It may not even be factually correct because it can't be easily verified, and there are so many conflicting sources including other Billboard books.   In theory, other editors can come in with their sources and keep on screwing with the article like they already have.  Did you notice that BASEBALL or sports in general is no longer mentioned in the article? But, hey, the Chateaus are!  Ooooooooo the Chateaus!    Anyone ever hear of them? NO!  But we did hear something about baseball before, as I may recall.  This is more of a vanity article of questionable authorship, accuracy, and efficacy now. Someone really ought to fix it! Thanks for your help and interest, though, Cowman.  It's truly appreciated.  Cooperstown77

It may be 'boring' as you say, but this is an article on the band, not on the song. The details about the song have been moved to the appropriate article (Na Na Hey Hey (Kiss Him Goodbye)). Cowman109 Talk 19:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me beat my head up against the wall one more time, pal o' mine! You see, there would be no Steam "band" without the song!  Sabe?  There was noooooo band: just a studio ensemble. Then the SONG became a surprise hit.  Then the producers said, "errrr ahhhh, hey, let's create some sort of band, call it Steam, and send it out on the road!"  Thusly, first there was the song, and it gave rise to the band.  Normally, you would be 100% correct but this was not a normal situation.  Apparently this particular version of "Steam" was always kind of controversial, and it's history, murky (for surprisingly good but complicated reasons).  It's creator, Paul Leka was the ONLY truly successful person involved, and the only one that had a music career that survived the ensuing disaster.  The only difference between "Steam" and the Titanic, is that the Titanic had a brass band playing as it was sinking! And they were getting paid union scale! lol If I was to sum it up, I would say it was Leka's genius that was responsible for the creation of the song, and the song was the genesis of the band.  The less-than-stellar touring band of 1970 was responsible for the death of the "band," and BASE-freakin-ball was responsible for it's renaissance circa 1972!  No one would be spending time right now on this "article" if not for that fact. The real question is, why does anyone -- including me! -- devote so much time to this Wikipedia thing? Think about it, we really aren't truly recording history because part of its premise is that it is not factually reliable, and anyone can put just about anything on here in just about any way that they please!  Huh? This article is the epitome of that. Looks nothing like what its creator wrote. Before I forget, nifty signature there, Cowman!  I gotta get me one of those sometime!    Cooperstown77 :-)

A merging of the two articles could be proposed, I suppose. And I would recommend you get a user account - it would make it much easier to contact you, of course, not to mention it offers you more privacy as your IP will no longer be displayed when you edit. As it stands now, however, we have one article on the song, and one article on the band. The two could theoretically be merged, because the band is clearly notable because of the song, but we do have a deal of information about them that may make cutting things down necessary should a merger occur. Cowman109 Talk 15:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know Cowman, you are starting to make sense to me. You are correct that merging the two is indeed possible, and I totally agree with your editing insight that the article would need to be cut down somewhat!   It is already a case of TMI (too much information), making the reader say 'na na hey hey good-bye' after the first glance or two!   I’m sure that the recent editors, like all of the totally inconsequential musicians that were involved about a ‘hundred years ago’ gave it the “ol’ college try,” but so did the builders and crew of the Titanic!   Only the kind of people who sit in the movie theater long after everyone cleared out just to read all of the credits would read the article for any length of time or find it interesting.  By the way, usually the ones that do that are looking for their ‘’own‘’ names or the names of someone they are connected with in some monetary way.  Or they just have a screw loose somewhere. lol In addition to the League of Unextraordinary Men mentioned at length in the article, it most certainly reads like a high school newsletter about a trip to the museum or something. Not even the prom!  Oh, and while I was at Borders today, I glanced through the ‘Billboard’ book referenced in the article – now I know where the high school grade writing came from --  and it has been plagiarized to the max!  That is a copyright violation without getting the permission of the publisher (which is not really Billboard for some reason).   But don’t worry, no one will do anything about it on Wikipedia unless someone sends an e-mail to the publisher or something.  About registering, I guess I can do it if it’s not too much trouble, but I have already been childishly threatened to be BLOCKED on here by some “editors” who did not like me jumping into the fray.  Uh, duh, I'm using the dreaded AOL! lol I will add that I USE AOL as noted on the history tab, but I do not MISUSE it.  I am fair, honest, and have no hidden agendas.  If the system was really just and impartial, and did not depend on how many allies you can round up to block and ban your opponents, it would make more sense for me to register.  Hey, wait a minute, I know the Cowman and Wahkeenah now!  lol :-)   If you would like to communicate elsewhere while I weigh the issue, I can check your user talk page. Cooperstown77 

Dear Cowman, I am responding to the accusation that the article was plagiarized. I edited User: RomeoVoid's version of the Steam (band) article, parts of which I transferred from the band article to the song article. Interestingly, RomeoVoid's article had been A-Okay with the commented out for privacy anonymous editor(s). In any case, I will get a copy of the Billboard article to make sure that there is no plagiarism. --Fortheloveofhampsters 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no you don't Hampster! I am NOT a commented out for privacy editor, and we already went over allllllll of thaaaaaaat so stop crying WOLF! Please!  You have added a LOT more to Romeovoid's article, and morphed it into something else entirely. Let's just check the history tabs to see what the article has turned into. You are a one-subject editor -- and why is that?  You were busy day and night on here until you got what you wanted and then suddenly disappeared. That makes me a little suspicious. Are you a sockpuppet?  It's okay.  Don't worry.  Stay calm. Keep cool. Obviously you have received a lot of help from others, and nobody seems to care. All I asked is that the article has less of the BS in it, and more interesting information about how the song is sports related. But, hey, do what you want to! Okay? You will anyway.  That is until a concerned and fair editor with know-how contacts an honest administrator about all the violations, or somebody e-mails the publishers of the referenced sources. I won't report you so do not worry or be paranoid about me. Oh, and one more thing: You do not print your real name, so you are also anonymous. One does not even have to give an address or phone number, and can use a Hotmail account or something (even that is optional) to register for Wikipedia (but we already knew that). Only somebody who gives their real name and full information is  not truly anonymous, and that is not even totally possible to do on Wikipedia.  Talk to you later, and think about some merging, cropping, etc., as Cowman has properly suggested. Cooperstown77 

what about David Lalibete?
I heard that he play bass when they were in the studio reacording the first ever song of na na hey hey goodbye.... and I thought that they used shells bells and anthing they could find to play that song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.244.46.130 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

We now have the testimony of an actual witness to these events
This article has now been revised by one of the actual participants to the Na Na Hey Hey phenomenon - the drummer. Because I know Paul Leka, Joe Messina, and all the other people who were involved personally and I was signed to Mercury Records as a member of Steam, the information that I have put into this article is my personal experience when I was a member of the band. Hopefully, this will end the arguments on the subject of Steam, how it happened and what it really was - a musical accident that a few people were able to capitalize upon and exploit. Signed, P.C. Van Vogt P.C. Van Vogt (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Garrett Scott Question
In the article it states that J. DeLeone was performing "with" Garrett Scott. In the Seattle Times article that is used as a source it states that "Garrett Scott" was a pseudonym used by De Carlo for the single release of Na Na Hey Hey. My thought was that the section stating that DeLeone was performing "with" Scott was intended to state he was performing "as" Scott. That would still conflict with the source cited. I was tempted to removed the parenthetical "(performing with Garrett Scott)" but am reluctant to do so due to the earlier conflict that is evident on this talk page. I don't want to pick open an old wound, so to speak. I would like input on this. I'll wait 30 days or so and, if no response, do the edit and let the chips fall where they may. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am Gary DeCarlo and I'm telling you and everyone else that J. DeLeone is full of crap, he never performed with me. I never heard of this wanna be. There are way too many stories written by people who think they know the story, but they don't. If you want to read the true story go to Author House, Amazon or Barnes and Noble and check out the book Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye(the story behind the record)then maybe some of you can talk intelligently about it.
 * Although I find the communication a bit "rough", you have confirmed that the info as written in the article to be in error. I should have made the edit removing the implication. I now see the article itself has been "disassembled" so the edit is now a non-issue. It's unfortunate that an article on this group has so much baggage attached. When I first came here I just wanted to learn about the group. What's left makes the article worth less to me as the casual reader wanting to know more. Mr. DeCarlo, is the article in the Seattle Times of any worth? I'm guessing you would say that it has inaccuracies also making it an unreliable source. Thanks for taking the time to provide some input.THX1136 (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ref.....http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/26/local/la-me-paul-leka-20111026......also ref,to gary decarlo you tube video's.
 * FYI, the above link to the LA Times ends in a "page not found" error.THX1136 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2014

Request to lock.
Someone who claims to be DeCarlo keeps popping up on here and adding his personal comments on the article with no sources to back it up. It has happened at least three times on here and maybe more. I am not entirely sure what the process to lock or at least semi-lock an article is (I am not a mod) but if anyone on here has that power, could you look into this issue?Nighthawk418 (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would be in agreement with the above request. The article should be protected from the wackiness that has been apparent in the past.THX1136 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)