Talk:Flipside (fanzine)

message: :Image:Flipside6.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a rationale. Wwwhatsup (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Flipside6.jpg

message: I removed the long list of personnel as WP:MAGAZINES/WG notes WP:NOTDIR. We just can't list all these random names of people who happened to be part of the zine. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudleyflipside (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with Hudley. The staff names are important. --evrik (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Important how? Is there an independent outside source that confirms their notability? WP:MAGAZINES/WG suggests listing editors, but also notes that Wikipedia is not a place to list every single person involved. The article includes mention of the "staph" and link to the (self-published) page that lists them. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *They writers were part of the culture of the magazine, and the magazine part of the punk scene at the time. The fact that most of them used pen names was part of the rebellious nature of the 'zine.  --evrik (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Ok, then find an independent reliable source that notes they "were part of the culture of the magazine". What you note above is your perspective. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * right now, you are driving an edit war. Please stop. The article as it was a few days ago is a good place to start. I'll find something in the next day or two. --evrik (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I really struggle to understand how you consider my incremental edits to apply policy as an edit war, especially since  shouldn't be editing directly in the article at all due to their conflict of interest. WP:MAGAZINES/WG provides some pretty easy-to-follow guidelines on how to write an article about a magazine. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

text: To reiterate, I'm simply trying to apply longstanding Wikipedia policies to clean up this page about a zine. I'm starting to feel like other editors are tyring to control revisions, which isn't how this encyclopedia works. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

text: *I have the freedom to share my history and insight as well as any of us who have experience to share and the knowledge of being there. Hudleyflipside (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: *None of us on Wikipedia have the "freedom to share" our experiences or insight. Zero, zilch, nada. Wikipedia has a hard policy against that—you can it see for yourself at WP:No original research. Unlike writers everywhere else in the world, editors on Wikipedia are not allowed to share their personal knowledge and experiences. Instead, Wikipedians are supposed to be reading, watching and listening to all the available information about a topic, published in WP:Reliable sources such as books, newspapers, magazines, documentaries, podcasts by uninvolved experts on the topic, etc. The best sources are third party independent publications. Only a limited amount of information can come from primary sources such as the fanzine itself. Binksternet (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personnel list 

message: I'm skeptical that hudleyflipside.com is a reliable source for content in this article as it appears to be self-published and likely by , exacerbating the conflict of interest they have with this article. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a punk rock historian who takes punk rock history very seriously. I was there and have come out with books to support my history with the punk scene and especially Los Angeles FLipside Fanzine. Hudleyflipside (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Who are you all to judge my experience as one who was a co-editor, owner, and publisher of Flipside Fanzine. I admit I am learning how to move through this place but one cannot erase my insights here. That is just sad. I am an original source therefore I am the most reliable source when it comes to Los Angeles Flipside Fanzine. I am one who has taken the obligation to preserve and protect Flipside Fanzine the best that I can because I am still alive to do so. Hudleyflipside (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns with hudleyflipside.com as a reliable source