Talk:Brian Camelio

message: Please remove following references at the bottom of the page that contain inaccurate information about Brian Camelio. 
# ^ Devin Coldewey, “Kickstarter Hit with Patent Claim over Crowd-Funding”, TechCrunch, October 3, 2011
# ^ Jeff Roberts, Updated: Kickstarter’s Patent Battle Over Crowd-Funding, paidContent.org, October 4, 2011. Consulted on October 6, 2011.
# ^ Ex-Journey man in Kickstarter row over funding patents, BBC News, October 5, 2011. Consulted on October 6, 2011.
# ^ Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, Kickstarter Faces Patent Suit Over Funding Idea, PCWorld, October 5, 2011. Consulted on October 6, 2011.
They all contain incorrect factual information about Brian Camelio.  Please replace these references with a link to the actual verified source - the lawsuit claim document.  
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/97950783/Kickstarter-patent
This is the only verifiable factual source regarding this lawsuit and is the only unbiased source for this reference.
98.14.149.118 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any incorrect information in the article itself or just the references listed?  If its just in the references then I believe that they will stay as they currently are.  If there are factual errors in the Wikipedia article feel free to post those here and someone will look at it. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 8 October 2011 

message: Thanks for your question on my talk page. I will not unprotect the article for now, notably because the above discussion shows that you haven't understood Wikipedia policies: in particular Wikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore, you alleges that the four last references in the article "all contain incorrect factual information about Brian Camelio", without however proposing any additional reliable sources that would explain why the four specific references would contain incorrect information. --Edcolins (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to unprotect 

message: Please remove all references to patent as the sources have been deemed unsatisfactory.  See view history records KickStarter where the same entry was deemed innapropriate.
remove:
On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887 , entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. The patent has since been assigned to Fan Funded, LLC.[7] On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was effectively filed (July 9, 2002). They say that Fan Funded and ArtistShare are demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them. [8][9][10][11]
as well as references 
# ^ Assignment record for patent US7885887, United States Patent and Trademark Office. Consulted on October 7, 2011.
# ^ Devin Coldewey, “Kickstarter Hit with Patent Claim over Crowd-Funding”, TechCrunch, October 3, 2011
# ^ Jeff Roberts, Updated: Kickstarter’s Patent Battle Over Crowd-Funding, paidContent.org, October 4, 2011. Consulted on October 6, 2011.
# ^ Ex-Journey man in Kickstarter row over funding patents, BBC News, October 5, 2011. Consulted on October 6, 2011.
# ^ Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, Kickstarter Faces Patent Suit Over Funding Idea, PCWorld, October 5, 2011. Consulted on October 6, 2011.
If you do not choose to remove this content please give your argument on the validity of the sources.   Thank you.
Jamesrand (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote elsewhere, BBC News and PCWorld are reliable sources. The material is verifiable, as far as I can see. --Edcolins (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 8 October 2011 

message: OK Ed. Please make the following edit to balance the entry for now if you insist on keeping this information in there and keeping other users locked out.  
On February 8, 2011, U.S. patent US 7885887 , entitled "Methods and apparatuses for financing and marketing a creative work", was granted. Brian Camelio is named as inventor in the patent. The patent has since been assigned to Fan Funded, LLC. On September 30, 2011, the crowdfunding site Kickstarter filed a request for declaratory judgment against this patent. They are asserting that the patent is invalid because the inventions it covers were either already known or were obvious at the time the patent application was effectively filed (July 9, 2002). They say that Fan Funded and ArtistShare are demanding license fees from them and threatening to sue them.  According to PatentExaminer.org, Camelio denies threatening to sue KickStarter or accusing them of infringement.  Camelio says he initiated contact with Kickstarter to license the company his software.  
reference below:
http://patentexaminer.org/2011/10/man-threatening-kickstarter-over-patents-says-he-is-stunned-and-disappointed-by-lawsuit/
Please keep in mind that "Special care should be used in regard to material about living people. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living people should be removed immediately and not tagged or moved to the talk page."   I am pointing out that this is the case.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this is a constructive proposal. I have implemented this and will unprotect the article. Balancing the entry is an improvement. --Edcolins (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

text: and Unprotected. See also User talk:Jamesrand#Changed my mind, unprotecting. --Edcolins (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 8 October 2011 - Article unprotected now 

message: remove the orphan tag please. guidelines state that tag should be place only if there are no links to it Wikipedia:Orphan
Jamesrand (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Avicennasis @ 20:03, 10 Tishrei 5772 / 20:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from , 8 October 2011 

message: I am removing all of this patent suit stuff about Kickstarter.  It has very little to do with the actual purpose of this page which is background information on Brian Camelio.  It was clearly placed here to attempt to promote a cause and is simply not relevant. 72.52.203.143 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See next section. --Edcolins (talk) 10:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  not relevant 

message: I am going to rebuild this page to include more information and correct anything that was not properly referenced. Jamesrand (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have inserted the content regarding the lawsuit back in the article (with one additional reference ). The information is verifiable, and, although contentious, the information is not poorly sourced. Six different, reliable, independent sources are provided. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Furthermore, all six sources mention Brian Camelio, so that the material is undeniably relevant. Wikipedia's purpose is not to write biographies from a sympathetic point of view, but from a neutral point of view. --Edcolins (talk) 09:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

text: James, I disagree. The matter is not clearly poorly sourced. I'll explain that below (see my note starting with "Nowa, James, thanks for the good work in trying to reach a consensus on this matter."). --Edcolins (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rebuilding this page 

message: Is paidcontent.org a reliable source?  Here is how they cover the patent dispute 
Here's how Time magazine covers it 
:Both unreliable.  Paid content references Journey and Time says he was a former member of PHISH.  Complete rubbish. These are blogs clearly written with an agenda to sway public opinion and sensationalize this situation.  We need to steer clear of this one folks.  Jamesrand (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you want to retract the comment related to Phish?  It seems pretty well established that he played for them, and it is now part of the article.--Nowa (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Brian Camelio never was a member of PHISH.  He may have worked for them but was never a member of the band.  I am sure of that.  TBeckham (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  "Worked with...PHISH" seems like the best description per Brian's New School bio.--Nowa (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, which is how it is stated on the page.  I do not wish to retract the statement as it is incorrect.  Are we all in agreement that the Time Magazine blog got it wrong?  See http://phish.com/#/band as well.  Jamesrand (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes--Nowa (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Sources

message: There is no need to mark every source in this article as "non-primary source needed".  It was previously requested that these facts be verified, which they all were with links to prove they were correct and true.  To tag them as in need of non-primary sourcing doesn't make any sense.  For example if it says he was a speaker at Judge Business School it is OK to put a link to the Judge Business School website to verify it.  Common sense dictates this.  Please see Wiki guidelines for sourcing.  
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. 
I am removing these tags for now as this article is just getting completely cluttered with nonsensical and excessive requests for sourcing.  It is overkill and counterproductive.  If there is a specific source anyone would like to discuss let's do it here first.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrand (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. There is one I would like to discuss first. The Celebrity Access reference. It seems to me that this is a self-published source, as far as I can understand the "Website Use Agreement" . That reference is used in the article for promoting the subject. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons dictates that such a reference cannot be used to support such positive material ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") Any objection to removing all the material based solely on this reference? --Edcolins (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you further explain your position on this site being poorly sourced?  It contains third party articles and interviews.  I am not seeing what you are gleaning from the user agreement.   Confused... Jamesrand (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Celebrity Access appears to be a promotional web site with self-published material. The source cannot be used in a BLP. --Edcolins (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, I don't see that anywhere. Where does it say that it is self published material? It is an interview.  Jamesrand (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: James, that this is an interview does not mean it is a reliable source. CelebrityAccess is not a reliable source usable in a BLP in my opinion. It is a business directory and these industry profiles should be considered self-published material. The subject of the interview is likely to have full control on the content of the page. I have requested a third opinion here. --Edcolins (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Sources 

message: I send a note to the author of the paidcontent article to see if he could confirm his source for Brian Camelio having played with Journey.  He said he’s not quite sure where he got if from but he thought it might have been from…….……………………………………….(wait for it)…………………….………………….…..Wikipedia.  
So I checked the Brian Camelio page as of October 4, 2011, when the paidcontent article was posted, and sure enough, it listed Brian as having “worked as a studio musician for Journey”.  There was no reference.
So I took a look to see who added it when and why.  It turns out it was added at the conclusion of an AfD.  See this edit, which occurred on July 13, 2007. 
So I looked at the AfD, and one of the editors mentioned it at the time.
So I sent a note to the editor to ask where he got it from, and he’s not quite sure but suspected it was listed on Brian’s allmusic credits page.  This editor added allmusic as a reference.  The listing is not there now.
So I now would like to apologize to Jamesrand.  I agree that any reference related to the current patent dispute that states that Brian Camelio played with Journey is prima facie unreliable and should not be used as a reference in this article.--Nowa (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This does NOT make the BBC article as a whole unreliable. That is a ludicrous conclusion. GDallimore (Talk) 23:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

text: No. As far as I'm concerned, you're letting yourself be bullied by a zealous editor who is twisting policy to his own ends. The BBC News article is reliable on the facts of the patent dispute. End of story. I will not see indisputable, referenced facts removed from the article by some bully. The finer details might need some discussion, but not the main facts. GDallimore (Talk) 23:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: GD - No one is bullying anyone.  These are logical and informative discussions and debates.  I am very sorry you are upset about it but we are working this all out here on the talk page.  The BBC article has been deemed a poor source.   Jamesrand (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumors and an apology

message: The consensus is keep [two explicit keep (Nowa, Edcolins), one implicit keep (GDallimore - implicit in view of the recent edits), one delete (Jamesrand)]. --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, but since this is shaping up to be a contentious edit, I'd like to make sure all interested editors have made their "keep" or "delete" choices explicit and are engaged before we make a change (assuming it goes that way)--Nowa (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I have reverted my own edit to the mainspace. I leave it to you to close the debate when you deem it appropriate. I am amazed by your patience... --Edcolins (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I thought maybe one more day might be appropriate, unless we get a clear super majority in the meantime.--Nowa (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be useful then: Wikipedia:Third opinion. You could list the dispute there. --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Nowa, I think this may be premature though.  We still need to agree on the sources and whether it is relevant.  What is the rush on this? Jamesrand (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I edited the language used here as the majority of it did not match the references cited. I still am not sure if this is really that relevant.  Jamesrand (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinserted the few words about the attempted negotiation by Camelio, as mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter reference (paragraph starting with "The following month..." and two following paragraphs). That's also in the Dutch reference ("Kickstarter ontving verschillende verzoeken van ArtistShare-oprichter Brian Camelio om een licentie op zijn patent te nemen." i.e "Kickstarter received several requests from ArtistShare-founder Brian Camelio to take a license on his patent") which I have added to support this as well. --Edcolins (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I once again matched the language to the reference.  I don't think the Dutch article can be used here as one will get a different translation depending on what translator is used.  It seems to say the same thing as the Hollywood Reporter so it is probably redundant anyway. Jamesrand (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had summarized the content of the two references with "[Camelio] is said to have sought to negotiate a licensing agreement with Kickstarter" because, as you wrote, the content of the references is redundant to a certain extent. If something concise is not enough, a more complete account of the content of the sources should be inserted. That's what I have just done. Regarding the translation of "Kickstarter ontving verschillende verzoeken van ArtistShare-oprichter Brian Camelio om een licentie op zijn patent te nemen" into "Kickstarter received several requests from ArtistShare-founder Brian Camelio to take a license on his patent", there is frankly no doubt about the translation. I have inserted some links to Wiktionary to help you verify this. --Edcolins (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Observation - the patent dispute section is very confusing to the uninitiated (like myself). You all might understand the nuances but a casual reader of the article might have problems with it. I just don't understand it. If it's kept, maybe a rewrite is in order - with some sympathy for those of us who are not patent attorneys. :) Wikipelli Talk 22:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, Wikipelli.  I think an entry on this subject is premature and maybe even irrelevant at this time.   It does not add to the purpose of this page which is to present a "biography" of the person.   I have been saying this for a while now as it does seem to confuse the casual reader.  Perhaps a separate page on the patent itself would be more appropriate.  At the very least we should wait until there is an actually "story" involving Brian Camelio around this.  It was in talk phase but the decision to post was made without complete resolution and proper rewrite.  I am not sure what the rush is but it seems urgent for some people to get this up there. Jamesrand (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't know what's so complex about this section. Camelio was granted a patent, he reportedly asked Kickstarter to take a license on the patent (and to pay royalties for using the invention, that's usually the purpose of a license), and then, in reaction, Kickstarter requested a judge to declare the patent invalid or, at least, that they did not infringe the patent. If this wasn't notable, this wouldn't have been reported in these three sources . The decision to insert this section was made after a consensus was reached, see above. --Edcolins (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: Could we make clearer that the two first awards appear to have been given to recordings, so not to Brian Camelio or at least only indirectly to Brian Camelio?  This reference  even seems to say that the recipient was Jim Hall: "This is the second Choc de L'ane'e Award in a row for Jim", rather than Brian Camelio. Any comment? --Edcolins (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Camelio was the producer and the album got the award.  That is considered an award In the music business.  --TBeckham (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: The history here shows that this section has been pretty contentious, therefore I tread trepidly. For such a short component of the article it was a confusing mess, so I've been bold and corrected and tweaked  and added refs. I also removed the amazingly trivial mention of Camelio unsuccessfully attempting to discuss the issue with Kickstarter. So what? What's notable or abnormal about that? It happens zillions of times where there are disputes. Such piddling minutiae has no justification here . Moriori (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree 100%.  I have been completely puzzled by the insistence of including such irrelevant information in this article.  Thank you for your edit.  I think it is very good.  Jamesrand (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Patent dispute section 
is
 was pretty shabby. 

message: I corrected the reference to study by Cathy Allison.  The document clearly states the purpose of the study.  The original reference was incorrect.   Please do not undo this again as it is destructive editing.  Thanks!  Jamesrand (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Career 

message: ......and on that basis I have been bold and edited the contentious patent section, by removing information that adds nothing to the article. I can't for the life of me see how adding verbiage which ex post facto is irrelevant can improve the encyclopedia.
The section now states the facts -- Camelio owned a patent, Kickstarter asked a court to invalidate his patent, the court ruled for Camello.
Why Kickstarer's arguments are being given so much mileage is beyond me, especially considering the court clearly stated "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement".
Enough!. Moriori (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Moriori.  Yes I agree with you on this.  However, the court did not rule on this yet.  Information is being added to tell the story from both sides.  Jamesrand (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So you have no objection to the addition of the following referenced information -- The court said "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement".  Moriori (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection at all. As long as no one in "interpreting" the source and it is a literal excerpt it is acceptable. Jamesrand (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: James, you have no objection against that (?). The court did not say anything like "Kickstarter has since used this suit as an attempt to extort from ArtistShare an unreasonable settlement". This is an argument of one of the parties. --Edcolins (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, I have no objection to him adding facts from that document as long as it was literal and not interpreted as per wiki rules.  I did not fact check his statement. It looks like he didn't end up adding it though.  Jamesrand (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

text: If it is not about Brian Camelio, then why are you putting it in this article?--Nowa (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The patent dispute section has to to with Brian Camelio according to you and EdColins.  Look at the history here as proof.  You two guys fought like crazy to include this information.  It seems now that you are not happy with additional information that neutralizes the information you have posted.  I'm sorry but there is not much I can do about that.   The point in question though has to do with use of a court document as a primary resource and it is valid since it is not being used here to support assertions about Brian Camelio but moreso about Kickstarter.  Jamesrand (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was originally moved by GDallimore from ArtistShare to Brian Camelio.  --Edcolins (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I have informed GDallimore as he may want to comment on the original reasons for that move. --Edcolins (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just moved it here because someone objected to it being on the Artist Share page because it didn't appear to be about Artist share: the patents were in Camelio's name and it was him bringing the action. At least, that was how it appeared at the time. That may have changed. I considered it sufficiently well noted information that it should go into an article somewhere and this was the best choice at the time. GDallimore (Talk) 21:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This has got beyond silly.....

message: Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article ArtistShare here.</br>
Debate closed. See closing comment above.--Edcolins (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific comments (ArtistShare):

message: Please insert specific comments on the section proposed for the article  Kickstarter here.</br>
Debate closed. See closing comment above.--Edcolins (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific comments (Kickstarter):

message: Three sections, each entitled "Patent dispute", are proposed above for inclusion in the articles Brian Camelio, ArtistShare, and Kickstarter respectively, either as a new section or to replace an existing section. Is the content of these sections relevant to the articles? If so, does the content meet our core Wikipedia policies? --Edcolins (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it's relevant to the articles on the companies, certainly, but I'm not sure about the individual.  DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input! I have just removed the "Patent dispute" section from the article about Brian Camelio, and I have moved the respective proposed sections in the articles about both companies. --Edcolins (talk) 08:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on above sections "Patent dispute"  

message: The recent deletion of the entire further reading section was restored.  There is nothing in violation of the wiki policy and everything is well referenced.  Please discuss such drastic measures before deleting entire sections.  64.131.184.113 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent deletions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brian Camelio. 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/20120406173247/http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/nouvelles/200701/22/01-12355-midem-nouveau-modele-economique-recherche.php to http://technaute.cyberpresse.ca/nouvelles/200701/22/01-12355-midem-nouveau-modele-economique-recherche.php
*Added  tag to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news_print.php?id=13398
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406212833/http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__students__student_organizations__the_commentator/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063349.pdf to http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__students__student_organizations__the_commentator/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063349.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425071850/http://overflowlegal.com/story.php?title=All-day_event_coming_up_in_New_York_City_on_October_6th_Whats_the_Future_for_Musicians to http://overflowlegal.com/story.php?title=All-day_event_coming_up_in_New_York_City_on_October_6th_Whats_the_Future_for_Musicians
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://newschool.edu/jazz/faculty.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303161349/http://www.allaboutjazz.com:80/php/contrib.php?id=32773 to http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/contrib.php?id=32773
*Added  tag to http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Phish/Phish/p/9780793572373
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329034054/http://learn.ssc.edu/fhanzelin/course_pdf_files_s00/mus102gu.pdf to http://learn.ssc.edu/fhanzelin/course_pdf_files_s00/mus102gu.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811231858/http://www.newschool.edu/jazz/faculty.aspx?id=37556 to http://www.newschool.edu/jazz/faculty.aspx?id=37556
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brian Camelio. 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/20111028205515/http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2008/02/02122008-addend.html to http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2008/02/02122008-addend.html
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) 23:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Camelio. 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/20110427175549/http://www.statesman.com/business/crowdfunding-is-the-new-creative-way-to-finance-1389119.html to http://www.statesman.com/business/crowdfunding-is-the-new-creative-way-to-finance-1389119.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/%40nyu_law_website__students__student_organizations__the_commentator/documents/documents/ecm_pro_063349.pdf
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, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified