Talk:The Hamsters

message: This article links to its creators web-site which contains libellous and defamotory material pertaining to Simon Cowell and a violation of his intellectual property rights.
:::You obviously haven't got to the class that delineates the differences between "libel", "defamation" and "common abuse". There are no violation of copyrights. Perhaps you should read up on MCPS. ---- WebHamster 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullshit. That is no reason to delete the Wiki article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Given you and your friends are WP:SPAs that have been trolling this article and the users defending it, I do not believe you. While we're at it, don't lie on edit summaries. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Jéské, but an image of a cartoon character peeing on someone's head is not defamatory, neither is it libellous nor unlawful. It's perfectly legal. It would be another matter totally if it was an image photoshopped to appear like Cowell was peeing on someone. Do you really think the band would have put something like that up without taking legal advice first? ---- WebHamster 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How exactly does a BBC article which begins They've been voted the best blues band in the UK and consistently sell out venues across the UK ... highlight the band isn't notable? In fact, it does quite the opposite. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign any comments you leave. The Hamsters aren't signed up to "UK Music Who's Who" because they don't need the work. You did realise that it's a promotions agency rather than an independent database didn't you? The book you linked to on Amazon  wouldn't contain them either as that book is for classical musical artists, duh! And no they haven't had a chart hit. Since when has that been a sign of notability as opposed to marketability? In any case when was the last time you saw a blues band in the UK charts? All of the Hamsters catalogue is on Amazon and I have no idea why you would think they would be in some Canadian database. They are of course in Allmusic should you care to look. ---- WebHamster 00:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: How exactly do you expect to find information about a blues band in a book that is a classical music directory? Your actions here are obviously in violation of WP:POINT. Please stop. IrishGuy talk 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Per Wikipedia:Protection policy; repeated abuse and bad faith edits from IP editors. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 01:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected for a week 

message: I note that "WebHamster" has removed the real names of the musicians.
Unless this can be justified, I propose that they are re-inserted. 
The idea of any encyclopedia is to inform, not obfuscate the facts.
Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed Slim and Otis' real names on their request. Andy doesn't have any objection to his being used which is why he has his own article and the others don't. I've done so per WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown. Actually, on this matter I'm on your side and I've tried to persuade them to let me write up more on them but they are intensely private people, especially Slim. --WebHamster 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pseudonyms read like joke names, which makes the article sound like a bit of a piss-take. (Which is unfortunate as they are an outstanding band.) Would it be better to rephrase things and make the reason for the pseudonyms explicit in the article? eg: replace the sentence "The original line-up was Snail's-Pace Slim on guitar and vocals, Rev Otis Elevator on drums and Andy Farrell on bass" with something like "The band members are intensely private people and some frefer to use stage pseudonyms. In the original line-up, the guitarist and vocalist used the name 'Snail's-Pace Slim' and the drummer was known as 'Rev Otis Elevator': Andy Farrell (his real name) was the bassist." What do you think? Bluewave (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work, Webhamster! I think the article looks much more encyclopedic now. Hope others agree! Bluewave (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The lads did indeed record footage for a new DVD at the Milton Keynes Woughton Centre a month or so ago. We were there and I filmed some bits with my camcorder so if you are interested I have posted some on You Tube. It was an excellent gig with some old and newer songs and covers being played. Some mistakes were made causing even more frivolity.
The Woughton Centre was where their earlier DVD was recorded. As far as I know The Hamsters are the only band to have released a DVD recorded at this venue. Also according to legend The Hamsters used to play there at the popular Sunday lunchtime concerts in the 1990s (and could in part explain their affection for the venue). This tradition continues today with many excellent bands appearing - one every Sunday near enough, free entry (1.15 pm to 3.15 pm). It is what I call 'Milton Keynes' Best Kept Secret' so pop along and give your ears a treat.
Finally, as to the name of the new DVD my money's on 'The Hamsters Live at the WC" (though it is called 'The Pitz' for most of the evening shows.
Royzee (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, no brownie points for you I'm afraid. The DVD is going to be called Curse of the Killer Hamsters and will be their first DVD that was recorded totally digitally, has extras and possibly a decent easter egg (not counting the little easter egg on the Verminator! DVD). --WebHamster 20:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New DVD 

message: Some more thoughts about our fave lads from Canvey.
Slim uses WD40 on his guitars - is this unique to him?
They use guitars embedded with LEDs and a laser for the show-closer 'Sharp Dressed Man'.
Their concerts are varied according to whose songs they do - sometimes it's just a mix of all three (ZZ Top, Jimi, Hamsters (which includes various others' songs such as Mickey Jupp et al.). They do not have a support act - the exception was The Mad, Bad & Dangerous Tour.
The Hamsters are not on any record label - they run the gigs and merch themselves. So they are despite the humorous names etc IMHO very single-minded businessmen. 
Royzee (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WD40 

message: The References in the article violate Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and in general fairly weak. Any thoughts? Bluescreenofdef (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Gain some experience of the rules you quote before starting up with the wikilawyering. --WebHamster 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes it is. Please read the rules you are quoting before you quote them. I've explained your faux pas already on the mediation page. --WebHamster 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it need a reference when there is a full listing of the contents of their CDs/DVDs which makes the genres obvious? --WebHamster 14:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V and WP:NOR. --John (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in either of those pages that mentions musical genres. If a music artist plays predominantly American music then it's pretty bloody obvious they come under the Americana umbrella. One doesn't need citations for the bloody obvious. For example, there are no refs to back up the assertion that the Rolling Stones play rock music. To insist upon it here is nitpicking to the nth degree. In spite of which I have included one, just to keep you happy. --WebHamster 15:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what I mean. Saying something doesn't need to be verifiable becaue it is "bloody obvious" (to you) is the epitome of original research. Fix it, please. --John (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fix it"? I take it you haven't read either the above or the relevant section in the article. It is fixed, and was so prior to you 'instruction' to me. --WebHamster 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done for adding a reference. Progress indeed. --John (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: This entire article is a publicity shot for an unsuccessful bunch of wannabees who sometimes play in a pub !!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.120.232 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. I have removed some of the external links as they were simply online adverts for their latest gigs and small and un-notable public houses in the south.Yiwentang (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Hoary, for the clarification. And there was me, assuming good faith! Bluewave (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Hamsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060305095756/http://www.digitalblues.co.uk:80/3.html to http://www.digitalblues.co.uk/3.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090808212823/http://www.midsussex.gov.uk:80/page.cfm?pageID=5835 to http://www.midsussex.gov.uk/page.cfm?pageID=5835
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090530183124/http://www.stratmasters.com:80/thedvd.html to http://www.stratmasters.com/thedvd.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Hamsters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608194452/http://www.italkguitar.com:80/features/the-hamsters to http://www.italkguitar.com/features/the-hamsters
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified