Talk:Andrew McMahon

message: Leave it in.  Who cares?  Why would someone make that up?  Jmannequin 21:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it clearly should have been removed (as it was). This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. If there are legitimate sources that confirm this, then it should be put in, but until then it doesn't belong in wikipedia. enderu 22:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage part 

message: HarryCane deleted the section Early reviews indicating "removed incoherent, negative content per talk page notice (reviews should go (if anything) on the album pages))".  I have rewritten the material slightly and hopefully it is less incoherent.  However the material is FULLY sourced, albeit some of it is negative.  The notice refered to by HarryCane says to delete "unsourced or poorly sourced" material. There is no libel here, just reporting on the exact words of actual reviews with regard to aesthetics, De gustibus non disputandum est. Also since two of the quotes refer directly to Andrew McMahon's voice, and one to his fondness for the piano, they seem appropriate in this article rather than in the one about the band.  Bejnar 00:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said your quotes are unsourced. My reasoning was possibly a little vague, true. I'm just saying they were added in an incoherent fashion, meaning they have no relation whatsoever to the rest of the article (they even contradict it). Listing  a number of reviews (and thereby over-emphasising unnotable reviewers) in the middle of an otherwise chronological biography simply confuses readers. Reviews are in these instances, despite McMahon's singing style being a focus, to be moved to the articles of the albums they refer to (or possibly to a seperate "Musical style and critical reception" section within the Something Corporate article). And since most of the quotes take a swing at the band's instrumentation in general (comparing it to Sum 41 and blink-182, "tsunami-size guitar riffs", "the music was only distinguishable by his 'fondness for the piano'" — which in this case seems more like a sugar-coated "They have a piano in a punk band." than an expression of McMahon's love for the instrument) and only few at his voice in connection with the songs performed by the entire band ("flat and irritating" and "Andrew McMahon whines through blubbery and indulgent ballads"), they simply don't belong here. --HarryCane 10:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I am interested in the contradictions you mentionmed "they even contradict it".  Since the reviews are documented and they are most (if not all) of the reviews published in the music industry press (as opposed to newspapers, pop magazine, blogs, etc.), I would be interested in what the sources were for the other statements.  Bejnar 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources for my statements are that in the Early reviews section it said "The first major review in 2002 [...]", when in the paragraph before their 2001 EP Audioboxer "earned rave reviews": Clear contradiction. And I removed the Entertainment Weekly article reference you seem to be so fond of for a good reason, being that it contains false information on the very details of the subject it is suposed to cite. I replaced it with first-hand journal entries by McMahon. I'm not making this stuff up, you see. --HarryCane 10:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early reviews

message: Why was that and this article merged? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.153.189 (talk • contribs) .
:Because there wasn't (and possibly still isn't) enough information on the band to warrant an article of its own. Back then, Jack's Mannequin was more of a pseudonym of McMahon's, as it was his solo-project. Now it's become somewhat an own entity, so a Jack's Mannequin article could be created. But given the way the Andrew McMahon article is structured, there isn't really need for that, is there? --HarryCane 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because of the way an article is structured it doesn't mean that we shouldn't create an article when warranted.  Jack's Mannequin is a band, Andrew McMahon is a person.  That's like saying just because Paul McCartney has a page with all the information of Wings in it, we shouldn't mess with it.  Doesn't make sense. CJMylentz 22:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I say anything to the contrary? No. It's just that official sites like PureVolume and MySpace lists McMahon as the sole member of this "band". The other members are in fact just touring members (most of them don't even perform on the album). It has been a solo project from the start and to create a Jack's Mannequin article with the exact same content as the Andrew McMahon article, well, that doesn't make sense. --HarryCane 13:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's okay. But please don't delete sections from the Andrew McMahon article (even if you copy them entirely to the Jack's Mannequin article). The biography in this article is based on its chronology, so "out-sourcing" certain sections will destroy the reading flow. --HarryCane 15:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack's Mannequin 

message: Also, weren't there 11:11 support bracelets? I guess it says "Most notably" but maybe these should also get a mention.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlanH (talk • contribs).
:It was mentioned but taken out, mainly because of the "most notably" (the AP.net bracelets raised over $20,000, and very few info on the other project could be found). Also, at that time it was added by the owner of the website that sold the 11:11 ones, and it seemed more promotional than informative. --HarryCane 21:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  11:11 

message: 1. Can we post a better picture on this page.  This is an awful picture of him
   
2. It is stated that Andrew "moved to Bexley, Ohio where he attended Cassingham Elementary School for 5th and 6th grades, and became a local legend by performing piano solos before he could even read music."  I live very close to Bexley, but have not found evedence to confirm this. Needs citation—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.186.89.167 (talk • contribs).
:1. Sure, if you have one. Wikipedia's image policy has recently undergone some changes though, and that has made it difficult for editors to upload official promo pictures of bands and musicians. If you have a better free image (not a random picture found online, but one that is actually released into public domain by the copyright holder, preferrably yourself), feel free to register an account and upload that.
:2. As for the citation: . It's a message board and thus not fully credible, but it's the best I could find at the moment. --HarryCane 21:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 Things: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew McMahon. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/somethingcorporate/articles/story/5935519/new_faces_something_corporate
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620185034/http://soco-online.com/articles/jacksmannequin/index.htm to http://soco-online.com/articles/jacksmannequin/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121216020137/http://andrewmcmahon.com/new-beginnings-2/ to http://andrewmcmahon.com/new-beginnings-2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922165943/http://www.jacksmannequin.com/dearjackmovie/ to http://www.jacksmannequin.com/dearjackmovie
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) 09:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified