Talk:Atlantic Records/Archive 1

message: Obviously, there's a lot more about the label's history to be included here. One thing in particular that I'd personally like to see is the warehouse fire in which a lot of master recordings were destroyed.  I don't know much about the fire, myself, other than the fact that it happened (I believe it was during the 1970s). I'll try and dig up more about it when I have time; maybe someone else will beat me to it. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Label history 

message: KarenAnn 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Jerry Wexler, Stax Records, etc.? 

message: I'd watch this page... expect to see "YOU SUCK" on it, just like "Weird Al" Yankovic types in the "White & Nerdy" video...
lol, yeah, it is to be expected. --doshindude
:It's already been semi-protected. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Vandalism coming? 

message: Thought I pressed "Show Preview"
Was this left by Kusanagi123?If so,why didn't you leave your name?You are supposed to leave your name when you post a comment.It is just Wikipedia policy.If you do not know how,just use 4 tides,which are on the left of the number 1 on the keyboard and by pressing shift for what's above,and your user name will appear on the page automatically.By the way,regarding that edit,if it was accidental,your apology is accepted.I advise you to watch what you press the next time you want to experiment with edits.Just a little friendly advice because I do not want to see you get into trouble here nor do I want to see you banned from editing.Thanks for clearing that up.Frschoonover 02:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what happened, but I know I've accidentally deleted my recycle bin off my desktop at least two times. Or god, what if the person has Parkinson's or something--that would suck because maybe they can't help it. I wonder if Wikipedia would ban someone from editing if they had a hand tremor or a prosthetic limb. 67.42.14.57 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry about that edit 

message: While admitting to being somewhat out of touch with what goes on out there in the real world, apart from daily tallies of killings, etc. etc., am dismayed to see such a large amount of space (both on this discussion page and on the article page) devoted to such a ridiculous (let's just leave it at that) issue/publicity stunt. As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, as yet unaware of any existing built-in mechanisms for content control, might I humbly suggest that in the interest of serious analysis any polemic content be reserved for the discussion page with a possible flag in the trivia/miscellaneous section on the article page? (With the possibility of including it in the main body of the article at a future date and following whatever Wiki-philosophy criteria apply) Keep up the good work - Wikipedia is great!.83.191.78.139 13:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd call the "YOU SUCK!" thing a publicity stunt? I agree that the Atlantic Records article itself has overshadowed the content about the actual record company, though.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Sorry about replacing the page with "The Record Company of Weird Al". My little brother did that, not realizing the seriousness. Naaj 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Record Company of Weird Al

message: Can I make a suggestion?...Actually I've already made it, I'll just elaborate on it:
As it stands, this article is being vandalised by users as per "Weird Al" Yankovic's White & Nerdy clip, and, after seeing the edit history, it doesn't look like dying done for some time. I suggest that ythe article be fully protected until the song has passed, then the protection be lifted. For the period of the protection, all edit suggestions can be filtered through this talk page. --JB Adder | Talk 10:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the level of vandalism doesn't warrant full protection as of January 2007, but admins do monitor the category that  puts talk pages into. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request (temporary) page protection 

message: I noticed a factual errorr, the most sucessful rock band on the label was Led Zeppelin not STP, not to mention the sentence proclaiming that doesn't even end in a period. Why can't I edit this page?
: Alas, a severe attack of persistant vandalism (apparently mostly by kiddies who've seen a Weird Al video but lack the intelligence to understand it) has affected this article. Please put suggested article improvements here on the talk page. (Personally, I'd prefer softer protection with liberal use of blocks on anyone logged in who vandalizes anyway.) Thanks, -- Infrogmation 03:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got Weird Al to blame for it. (see above)
As long as it's brought up on this page, it should get fixed by an admin --WillMcC 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've softened the protection; you should be able to edit it now. If not, put suggested changes here. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why cant this article be edited?

message: I've rewritten the commented warning at the top of the page and after a week of full protection moved to softer semi-protection.  I'd tend to suggest treating any logged in user vandalizing this page the same way as deliberate vandalism to any other page by a logged in user. Comments or suggestions of other ways of dealing with it welcome. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that we have a tradition of holding logged in users to somewhat higher standard than random anons waundering in, and that this is one of the few pages that actually has an additional warning right on the page when one edits it. -- Infrogmation 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiprotect

message: Did "Weird Al" really valdlize this page, or is that just in the video? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.186.193.166 (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just in the video. Some graphics effects were used to make the text --WillMcC 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He had a real edit box open, he just didn't save his changes! Good man. Radagast 02:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: White & Nerdy#External links links to a copy of the video uploaded to YouTube by user "weirdal". The scene in question is at 1:49. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: weird al

message: What was the reason for returning the article to full protection?  There has been some vandalism, but averaging less than one a day since it was returned to semiprotection, and the article seems well watched with such vandalism reverted quickly. -- Infrogmation 13:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully protected this as a preventative measure against vandalism from these accounts that are getting past semiprotection. It came from a request at WP:RPP. I also did recomend that the people that watch this page file a checkuser request to get some underlying IP's blocked in the meantime. I would probably wait about 5-7 days before going back to semiprotection, or at least until a checkuser has been able to determine if some underlying IPs can be blocked to stop all the serial vandalism. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Six acts of vandalism in a week - of which two seem to have been reverted by the vandals - doesn't seem the "nothing but vandalism" mentioned on WP:RPP. -- Beardo 19:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for protecting this article from vandalism and riff-raff.  I've read in a few news articles that Wikipedia was testing some sort of protection method on the German Wikipedia, what is the status of that?  Citizendium already has a similar system in place right now, making it easier for editors to focus on, gasp, editing.  If a well-meaning editor wishes to contribute they can just comment here on the talk page for now.  (jarbarf) 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This article should always remain fully protected. - Kevin23 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. The ever-increasing number of Weird Al-related vandalism led me to request full protection. --Andrewlp1991 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: Full protection denied. --Andrewlp1991 06:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to full protection

message: Hey, I just wanted to go there and write YOU SUCK! here and it's not possible!! Why??? --Have a nice day. Running 19:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is protected for that very reason. Vandalism is not cool and can get you blocked from editing --WillMcC 20:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Gosh, sorry to hear you're so disappointed. If you'd like to be blocked for vandalism anyway, just ask.  Your pal, the ever helpful Infrogmation 03:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get blocked for vandalizing once, though? I'm asking this because I was also tempted to write "You Suck!!!" (But I didn't) mirageinred 00:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are disrupting Wikipedia you will be blocked.  It is that simple.  If you think you can take advantage of the system on a technicality, you are wrong.  (jarbarf) 00:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no fun! xcryoftheafflictedx 10:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalising isn't cool. It's like signing your own graffiti.Pengwiin 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  protection? 

message: :The Wexler/Stax relationship is mentioned, though the way it is worded is misleading at best.  The way it reads now, it implies that Jerry Wexler ran and/or founded Stax Records, which is incorrect.  Even the cited source states it differently (i.e., correctly). As an admin, I'm technically able to make the correction, but since the article is protected, I assume I should not make an edit on behalf of myself.  So then, in the "History" section, I'm requesting that the following sentence:
::"In 1960, Atlantic began a distribution relationship with a recording enterprise in Memphis, Tennessee, spearheaded by Jerry Wexler which became Stax Records."
:...be replaced with this code:
::In 1960, Wexler began a distribution relationship between Atlantic and Memphis-based Stax Records.
:Thanks, -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone forward and incorporated the change, as no one has objected since this was requested five days ago.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected edit request

message: I think this has been under full hard protection a rather long time. I propose returning it to semi-protection, and will do so if there are no serious objections. -- Infrogmation 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to semi-protection

message: I didn't see any need to clutter up the sentence, but if anyone needs a source for the reference to Atlantic Records releasing country music, in 1950 they released the single "Why Do I Cry Over You?" by Bill Haley and His Saddlemen, and a reproduction of the label can be found in the Haley box set Rock 'n' Roll Arrives by Bear Family Records. It would be interesting to find out whether this was the only country single released by the label as I know of no others (though I believe they did issue some rockabilly recordings later so I guess those count). 23skidoo 19:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Country music

message: Not an officitionardo of Atlantic but to those who are.  I can remember Atlantic records (at least in the uk) back in the 70s when they still used paper labels on albums and singles (as opposed to printed direct onto the record). While the overall design of the atlantic label was uniform, they used 2 different colour schemes on the label. Some artists were released on a blue and orange label while others green and orange but I never found out if there was any significance in this.  Dondilly 00:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This URL, as far as American issues is concerned, is a good start for LPs: Steelbeard1 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlantic Label design in the days of vinyl

message: === Move List of artists to new article ===
I propose that the list of Atlantic Records recording artists be spun off to a separate "List of..." article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the section more concisely, at a level of detail more appropriate for an article about a record label. You're right that the rest should be merged into the "further info" sections. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: omg he's amused by it! he doesnt beleive in his own powers! Thejakeman 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because there is no media coverage. What legitimate newspaper cares about this happening? Gdo01 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the article White & Nerdy adequately explains the controversy. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving here from main article 

message: I propose that the list of Atlantic Records recording artists be spun off to a separate "List of..." article. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move List of artists to new article 

message: In June 2006, "Weird Al" Yankovic released a parody of James Blunt's hit "You're Beautiful" via the internet (but not on his album Straight Outta Lynwood) called "You're Pitiful".  The song is only available for download because even though Blunt gave Yankovic permission to record the song, he is signed with Custard Records (distributed by Atlantic Records), and Atlantic denied permission for the song's album release. Yankovic's record label, Volcano Records, decided not to "go to war" with Atlantic even though they could still legally use "You're Pitiful". Later on, Al recorded some replacement songs for his album, including "White & Nerdy", a parody of "Ridin'" by Chamillionaire. In the song's video, the "nerd," played by Yankovic, is editing Wikipedia's Atlantic Records page, adding "YOU SUCK!" in big, bold letters. This is a reference to this event. This inspired a number of copy-cat vandals to put the same text in the Atlantic Records Wikipedia article numerous times. Yankovic has said that he does not approve of the vandalism, though he admits being amused by it.Adams, Cameron. “Weird Al Yankovic.” Herald Sun, October 5, 2006.
Maybe this should go into another adjasent article. Mattisse(talk) 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the section more concisely, at a level of detail more appropriate for an article about a record label. You're right that the rest should be merged into the "further info" sections. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 03:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: omg he's amused by it! he doesnt beleive in his own powers! Thejakeman 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Media references

message: How is the whole controversy not notable enough when there are people visiting every day concerning the vandilism --Chalutz 12:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there is no media coverage. What legitimate newspaper cares about this happening? Gdo01 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Because the article White & Nerdy adequately explains the controversy. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert for the more detailed version 

message: It should be mentioned that Atlantic Records is an RIAA member, according to  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.117.240.146 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Member of the RIAA

message: When I try edit edit only semi-protected pages it says "view source" as if I was an anoymous IP editor.--Dummmmmmy 21:36, 11 Septetmber 2007 (UTC)
Superscript text
:You must be an existing user for at least four days before you can edit semi-protected pages.  --Chris (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: :Image:Atlantic Records.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added requested formal fair use rationale. Steelbeard1 12:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Atlantic Records.png

message: I am starting to think it might be time to fully protect this article form editing untill "White and Nerdy" becomes just another song... Quite a large chunk of edits are vandalism and do not contribute. All the other edits seem to be reverting vandals. I believe that it's time for Wikipedia to fully protect an article that is not going anywhere. Javascap 23:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the bozos have been seriously taking a public dump on an important article on music history that energy would better be spent on improving, but on the plus side this article has been a dandy flytrap for identifying accounts created primarily or only for vandalism, and is so well watched that the vandalism generally reverted very quickly. I therefore support leaving it at semi-protected for now. -- Infrogmation 18:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree sprot is better for now. — xaosflux Talk 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I also agree; the "YOU SUCK!" mayhem still continues, and, judging from the number of wannabes who mimic Alfred Yankovic's joke revision, and the full protection imposed on Vannesa Hudgens' page at one time (because of persistent vandalism), a full article lock is necessary... Blake Gripling 09:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection level is fine where it is.  The current amount of vandalism is perfectly manageable, and users are making constructive edits in between.  Full protection would be harmful to the quality of this article, not beneficial.  --Chris (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that full protection would be harmful. Most users are not sysops, and many, many non-sysops are valuable contributors of specialised, high-quality article material. This could be a good article with a bit of improvement.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection?