Talk:Brocket 99

message: I'm wondering about the fact that I've heard a rumour that local news correspondent Mark Campbell was involved with the tapes production. Has anyone else heard this rumour?--Jeff 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Brocket 99 Fan site has an interview with Mark Campbell in which Mark denies having anything to do with the making of Brocket 99.  Is this information worthy of an update to the entry? --Jeff 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it Jeff. Until you had brought it up, I had never heard of Mark Campbell having a connection with the tape. If someone had already claimed on the article page that Campbell had a connection, then I think we could make that edit. --Kmsiever 19:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Campbell Connection

message: Okay, let's try to define cult-like status.  If I've never heard of the band Phish before, but am told they have a cult-like following, first thing I'd do is google "Phish."  Well, if you google Brocket 99, on page 1 alone I find two fan-based websites, one of which sells official "gear."  I see a film website.  I see that the film has been featured at an International Film Festival.  I see a film review by a national literary and arts magazine.  I see a Wikipedia entry, for heaven's sake.  Seems to me there's a culture surrounding the phonomenon.  Just because I've never heard of it while in Montreal does that make it any less popular to its devotees & detractors?  Just because I've never heard of Phish, do they not exist?Mydinque 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It means, I am not notable. Or rather, not notable enough. --Kmsiever 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  defining status 

message: Now that there are two documentaries (even though one is still in production), I wonder if we still need the infobox. Does the infobox allow for more than one film? --Kmsiever 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't know but think that is a question that can be asked once and if the 2nd production is completed and/or becomes notable. Canuckle 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *It is noted and I added the link to the production company as a source as evidence that it did not violate guidelines on speculation. If you can find reliable sources for information, please discuss it in civil fashion on this Talk page. Continued pushing of a single point-of-view is disruptive. Canuckle 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I reviewed WP guidelines on external links, (see: WP:EL), to assess www.brocket99.net. 
What to link
"There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.
*Is it accessible to the reader?
*Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
*Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?
...When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors."
Some of the points against as per Links normally to be avoided:
# Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
# Links mainly intended to promote a website.
# Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
Canuckle 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *While a site can be a source about itself to a certain extent, Wikipedia requires independent, third-party, reliable sources. If the canon is only recognized by itself and not by other reliable sources, than I'm afraid it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Canuckle 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: external links

message: This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB.
Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "needs infobox" tag 

message: Since this article is clearly more about the Nilesh Patel film and not the "Brocket 99" radio show, perhaps it would be more accurate to add "The Movie" to the title (?)
(96.48.205.216 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's about both. "Brocket 99 is the name of an underground comedy audio tape that parodies aboriginal people in Canada and the name of two documentary films about the tape". --Kmsiever (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Kim Siever, quit changing the Brocket 99 thing back. This is not the Kim Siever or Nilesh Patel Comedy Hour. If you want to make this about Nilesh's film then make a separate page for it instead of removing vital information from the Brocket 99 article. All of these facts can and are substantiaed, so why don't you go buy or download the recordings and then go from there. You have no knowledge of Brocket 99. You know as much as I did back in 1991.Pincher Peigan
:You're telling me to not revert the article, yet that is exactly what you did: revert it to an older version. I realize this isn't about me; this is about following Wikipedia policies. Of course, if you have gone through all the comments above, you have realized already this is all I have called for before. I am honestly ambivalent toward the tape itself and the documentaries. I really don't care about the content of either, and haven't read/watched either. None of that matters though. Wikipedia doesn't care whether editors have experienced the subject of an article. All it cares about is that content added to articles is from published secondary sources, is cited, and is written in the editor's own words. Content should not be from primary sources, should not go uncited, and should not be pilfered from another website. All I want is for articles to follow established policies. If you want to add new information, fine; but please ensure it follows WP:COPY, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS at least. --Kmsiever (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting changes

message: Please check out the following article:  Tube Bar prank calls
The Discography section contains clear spin-off product.  It contains a product called "Red's Tube Bar Christmas" (Single) by an artist named Bob Ryan.  This is clearly similar to the situation with the Brocket 99 spin-offs.  We should create a discography section here, with the different CD issues of the tape, and the different spin-offs, in the same format.  The precedent is there.  The discography on that article is entirely independent releases, just like Brocket 99.  Regards, BrocketBuck (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous Brocket 99 Spin-offs that should be included in the Brocket 99 wikipedia article. Some have tried to do so in the past only to have Kim Siever revert what has been added. They are still is the history section of the Brocket 99 wikipedia article, but you'll just have to do some digging. KangChulsu (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spin Offs II 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Brocket 99. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/front-page-news/students-say-brocket-99-tape-warrants-police-investigation-42812.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified