Wikipedia

Talk:Have One on Me

Latest comment: 14 years ago by Eguinho in topic Introduction
Learn more about this page

Introduction edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was this stupid this warning about the intro being too small, so i made one. I hope it's not too big! And it is readable. I know the intro is bigger than OK Computer's and Low's, but please, it has a good amount of informations, it is readable, not BIG BIG, or cut and paste information. I hope you guys like it, if you want to change it, come and discuss we can find a way to resolve that! The thing is that i made that, so to me everything is important. If you guys think is too big, and some thing could have been cuted out come over here and say something, you are really helping. It's pretty hard to do things on your own, you swear is good, and sometimes it isn't. =] Eguinho (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Black cover is the official one, not a fan made, but that's not what i want to talk about edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Someone posted the tracklist, but we do need a reference. I'm searching everywhere, but i can't find anywhere. So if you have it, please post or add. The whole article is using references, we only posted things that are confirmed, so far. So have a reference would be great. Now about the cover, please don't take off. I know it looks fake, i also thought that, but it is not, is the real one. The promo photo joanna released, the one which she looks so hot, is so colorful and full of life that some people are actually thinking that this is provisory cover, and the real one will only be revealed later. But that's a rumor. So far this is the cover, deal with it! Now we need to find a tracklist reference, or we will take the one posted down. Eguinho (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the album cover? Boing! said Zebedee 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. It should actually be removed now probably but I'm not bold enough to do so. Looking forward to the album, although not too enamored with the cover 98.239.184.6 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too enamored with the cover either. =] But so excited about this release! Every information that comes out, we just add over here. It's such a disappointment when people create stuff. Like the tracklist, so far, it might be fake, and that interview with Clash Magazine. Someone actually pretended to be Joanna, they created that thing, it's so sad cause, we kinda expected that from some crazy fans over here on Wikipedia, but never a journalist on a respected music magazine/website. The Joanna promo photo, the one she's wearing a colorful dress, a red lipstick (you might find at pitchfork), is so full of life! Not surprised that people are thinking that the black cover is only provisory, and the real one is on its way. Black outside? Colorful inside? Joanna is such a huge mysterious, so who knows? There's a whole month in its way yet, but again, when something like this happens, we need references. That's why the black cover is still on, there's a bunch of them. Unfortunate some people think is a fake one, and take the photo off. So far Drag City confirmed this cover and only one track '81, there's not a single tracklist on that website, and when you pre-order something, you're should be the first to know the content. We need to find a reference. I'm sorry to the person who posted it, and maybe it is the real one, really. But, right now, i have my doubts, and some other people too. So whoever has a reference add to the page, contribute, it helps a lot of fans, and people looking for good and trustable information! =] Eguinho (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the two IPs who have posted track details if they can tell us where they got the info - if they can't, or don't reply within 24 hours, I'll remove it (unless someone else does first). Boing! said Zebedee 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you asked some references for this cover and here they are:

http://www.dragcity.com/products/have-one-on-me http://pitchfork.com/news/37690-new-joanna-newsom-song/ http://www.dragcity.com/ http://www.dragcity.com/store

I know i posted the label website like 4x, but they all contain the cover. I guess if the label is using this cover on the website, then it is the real one, so far. There's NO tracklist on the Drag City's website, that's why i found the tracklist doubtful, hope someone post a reference! Eguinho (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that looks good to me, thanks - I just want us to be seen to be fair if we remove some unreferenced material but not others. Boing! said Zebedee 05:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I got no reply from either the IP who added the tracklist or the one who made an amendment to it, so I've removed it. They may be dynamic IPs and so they haven't seen their talk pages, but hopefully they'll notice it's gone and perhaps be able to put it back with a reference. Boing! said Zebedee 05:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

People were right! The black cover was only provisory! The real one was revealed!! I LOVE IT =] Eguinho (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

yes, i am aware that this is not a forum for discussion of the album, but it has leaked. and it is incredible, and ambitious beyond belief. --Kaini (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Length of criticism section edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just that. The criticism section is absurdly comprehensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.234.162 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quite StevenEdmondson (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

::Please you might want something "compact", but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it must contain everything that fans and people want to know. If you think is "lengthy", that is your opinion and i respect it, but this is a 2h album, would you like to see critics criticizing this for being too lengthy? This is page will be on internet forever, this is not provisory, which means that in a not so far future people will look for information and will find everything over here. All the reviews have been cited, we didn't add only 10 ratings and a metascore, we gone further, adding reviews, citing reviewers, grade, the overall reception, the highs, the lows, the difference between this record and her others, we even put a picture of hers to make it pretty. We had a lot of work to compile all that, and suddenly someone calls it lengthy and some people want to change it. No way! That was hard work, this is wikipedia not twitter, there's no such characters limit. Read if you want to, we are keeping that way. Cause people who wants informations will find over here. It's easy to come over here, after the whole section is builded and want to change something, but where were you when we needed people to find reviews, and write something? When we needed help, informations.... I recognize other people that were always here trying to make this great, including myself, have you see the other Joanna Newsom's album's articles? They are way too simple, i added like 2/3 of the reaction section on the Ys article. I followed the same path that creators and developers of featured articles did. Soon we'll build a tour section (talking about Joanna's tour and the tour reception), the songs sections (that will inform the readers what the songs are talking about according to Joanna Newsom herself [i collected like 5 interviews so far, and we can use it as references]), chart performance, credits and personnel, everything will be added. By the end of the year we will add the accolades the album received. This is an article that is still on its work, only the reception section and the background are 98% done. I know we live on the internet era and people just want fast food information, but i want to add on this article everything related about this album, every information, i don't care if its long for someone, at least me and people who are helping we are doing our part. Most featured articles are big, and no one complains about that, of course they want information, and they found it. I hope they can feel that towards this article too. I'm a fan of many other artists, and i wish some of their album articles were like this, full of details and informations, instead of a 3 line article and an Allmusic rating.Sorry but that is the true, i still remember when were collecting reviews, posting everything, there was like 40 reviews on the infobox and then we had the work to transform that in prose. Please, can we have a "thank you", or we will just receive this kind of discussions for helping this article to be better ? And before some people start calling the section big and disorganized, i don't know if you guys realized, but

Paragraph 2 (The Wire) - The first review, it gave a LOT of informations to us in early February, it was really a huge help to the article
Paragraph 3 (the one that starts with Ann) - Full score reviews
Paragraph 4 - Reviews without scores/grades/stars
Paragraph 5 - Mostly websites, and/or websites that rates between 0 to 10 or 0 to 100, the only exception being the Washington Square News, we only cited them on this paragraph cause they agreed with what Under the Radar already had said, so we decided to add it over there.
Paragraph 6 - Printed Press
Paragraph 7 - Non-british and Non-american press
Paragraph 8 - Mixed but overall positive reviews
Paragraph 9 - Mixed or Negative reviews Eguinho (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
No seriously, that article is a heapload of too long; didn't read. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan forum where you post every single review and score in extreme detail. It doesn't matter how much work you put into this article if you did it the wrong way, using that excuse in order to garner sympathy has no place here. If you want ratings, go to Metacritic and scoop out each reviews for your own personal pleasure, that's what it's for and that's why you cite it, but writing abundant paragraphs of EVERY single review in existence is not how Wikipedia rolls. You're supposed to compress the general consensuous; cite a few reviews and then even it out with more negative ones, not act like a proud fanboy who believes they are GREATER THAN THOU and can lecture everyone on how something works. You like the album; good for you. But this article is painful to read and your arguements are even more painful. If writing a gigantic essay about how well recieved this album is is going to be "informative to the fans and other people" when the scores are practically cut pasted from MetaCritic links then that gives me really poor insight about what I already know about and what I should check out elsewhere. Fear Of A Blank Planet won numerous album of the year awards yet it is compressed enough to be enjoyable to read, and hell even OK Computer and Kid A which have gotten atleast alot more coverage, attention and legacy have a proper structure. Carbo45 (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
i'm inclined to agree - i've kept an eye on this and had hoped that once all the critical reaction was in that the section be pared down to a few of the best assertions from the best reviews that would attempt to succinctly describe what the album sounds like, and what parallels to draw. like Carbo45 has said, albums that are not only held in critical acclaim, but are hailed as landmarks in their genres have far shorter articles. if a reader encounters quotes from 20 reviews he doesn't come away from an article with a better understanding of the article album; he comes away from it confused and with a headache. --Kaini (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Do what you guys want to do. I'm not here to gain anyone's sympathy. I was trying to help. I just think that a reception section is to show reviews and how this was received, not to show "how it sounds" (which is something that an "about the album" section is about and this is what your ears are supposed to do). I tried to help when no one was giving a shit to this record, collecting informations and everything. It doesn't matter if all the critics panned this shit, i would still post every review. I'm not trying to be THE victim or THE best or THE fan saying that i had a hard work doing that. But no one did a section, so i did it. If you care so much then do another and replace it. I have a life, i need to do other stuff, it's not like this is the end of the world or something, i will still enjoy this article and the album. This is why there's a discussion page. It's not like i own wikipedia or something, if you want to change change it. I just think that a person that doesn't even have an account and come over here saying it's too big shouldn't change it. But if you're an user, has an account, and you want to make this better, then do it. I'm not going stop you and undo it. And i'm no fanboy, it's not my fault if this album only received 2 negative reviews and a mixed by Sputnikmusic, although another staff member gave 4.5 to the album too. And i didn't cut and past anything, go see it, there are more reviews cited on this page than on Metacritic, there's nothing cut and past. Sorry, but although i agree that this can be solved and the section compressed, some of YOUR accusations are silly and unbiased, (who let the 12 year olds out?) and i'm the fanboy, believe me if i was one of them i would point my finger and call you a hater and then i would start saying that crazy stuff fanboys say and how they hail Joanna as their ultimate queen, their Goddess and all that cheap talking they talk (see the PopMatters review comments). I'm SO not that. Too bad wikipedia is stuffed with stupid people who can't separate "helping and doing something instead of watch" and "change all the grades and just cut and paste the great reviews"... maybe that's how discuss sections rolls. Who knows? You talked what you want, now listen to what you didn't want. If this album received 50 negatives review, i'd post all of them independently of the size of the Kid A's and OK Computer's reception section. Fortunately is not the case, she made an album that is already inside the End of The Year lists, it's a sure lock and if you can't deal with it, that's good and it's not my problem. My conscience is clean, i had good intentions. It's sad that no one can't recognize that and actually criticize me for something i'm not, if you see my edits, i'm always undoing what the fanboys do: change grades, change reviews, change metascores, and manipulate information, which is a crime to me since i'm a journalist in my country (Brazil, my english sucks, but i have an impeccable portuguese and now that i expressed my thoughts or my painful "arguements", i'm going to listen to the new Laura Marling album since i have got to deliver a review on monday at the magazine i work at, it's awesome, but it's no Have One On Me (enjoying this record a lot). ) Eguinho (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Eguinho, i don't think anyone is disputing that you've done an impressive amount of sourcing and collection of information with this article, and personally, i'm not disputing the brilliance of the album either - i really have problems imagining anything topping it for me this year, even though it's only march. but compare the critical reception/reaction section to the corresponding one on Ys. or even pick something regarded as something of a musical landmark like OK Computer or Low - the corresponding section is a lot shorter on these too (edit: actually nonexistent in the latter, and that's not ideal either). at the end of the day our function as editors on wikipedia is to create articles that can be easily read without being confusing or excessive in detail for someone completely unfamiliar with the material in question; if a reader wants detail, well, that's why we have references. --Kaini (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah i know, and i understand. Like i said, you can do it. Make everything shorter and cut the details. What i won't accept is personal attacks like being called a fanboy, "cut and past" information, manipulating information, this kind of stuff cause it wasn't like that. If you guys wanna make shorter and readable you can do it. The reception of Ys was even smaller, until i aded some End of the Decade lists and a few other informations like sales and all that stuff and it's sad The Milk-Eyed Mender has not a reception section. I was trying to avoid that with this album and i done that huge thing. I hadn't bad intentions at all. I do not own anything, if you guys want to change it, then do it. I might even help to make what you guys wanted this to be. Eguinho (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I took off the reviews of non-big publications. It is still a lot and i'm still expecting ideas and how this new reception thing will be builded. Eguinho (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Returning back to the opening statement, "wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it must contain everything that fans and people want to know". Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopaedia aimed at the layman. It gives a detailed, edited overview of a specific topic and directs the reader to more granular resources elsewhere. It is not a Joanna Newsom encyclopedia and is not aimed at fans of Joanna Newsom or indeed fans of anything, and it does not simply list every available fact about a certain topic. I came to this article expecting to learn something about the album; instead I am baffled by a huge wall of repetitive sourced quotes. "The album received mostly positive reviews, with X of LEADING NEWSPAPER stating that QUOTE whilst X of LEADING WEBSITE stated that QUOTE. Amongst dissenting voices, X of LEADING NEWSPAPER stated that QUOTE. The album has a score of PERCENT on REVIEW AGGREGATOR as of DATE. It entered the LEADING NORTH AMERICAN GENERAL CHART at NUMBER X and also charted in LESSER COUNTRIES STARTING WITH THE UK" would be sufficient. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ashley, i undid your edition, because you took off a LOT of important reviews (eg Drowned In Sound, Pitchfork, Yahoo, the list goes on). After your edition i took off a few quotes, you can go and see. I don't know if you only came here after i undid it or if you discuss it before, but if you read the discussion under this one, you'll see that we working on something knew. Take off the reviews won't help a lot now, we are already doing something. If you want to join, join us, if you don't, it's your choice. 2 weeks ago, we didn't even had a intro, we builded one and it's great. I don't care with the other articles are smaller, we are creating something new, i've seen plenty of other articles with a reception section as big, and many film articles included quoting, so i don't know what it's the problem. What we'll do is to put how critics described the album and the overall feelings, while quoting only the most important reviews, it's not a lot. You coming and taking them off it's not helping at all. And this is not Joanna's encyclopedia, but sure is HER article, so of course it will be about her, and of course FANS and people trying to know something about her will come over here. It's not like someone accidentally wrote "Joanna Newsom Have One On Me wikipedia" at Google.com. And you can learn something only reading the introduction, so i don't know how you didn't learn anything and was only "baffled by a huge wall of repetitive sourced quotes". It's not a fanboy article, cause there's not a single line in which we call her a queen, the reason of my living, even a goddess or we do something that is not encyclopedic. Everything is information and coming from professionals. It's not our fault if critics liked it and called her one of the best of her generation and every one of them had something to say (more than 63 reviewers reviewed this). And all the stuff you suggested: "The album received mostly positive reviews... blah blah blah" and all the rest it's inside of three sections: "introduction", the old "reception" section and the chart performance, we go deep on the these ones, cause we can't copy and paste what we already said in the intro, which is the overall view of the article and the album. And this "length" discussion is already dead, since we started doing something new, as you can see right under this comment. As far as i know, you're one of the best editors, so having your help would be great, after you pointed that thing of "repeating the same quote over again", i took off a few of them, still a lot, but we working on it. Eguinho (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The New Reception section edit

Any ideas? First of all, which reviews we will keep (we are already keeping the ones inside the professional reviews infobox), and which ones will be gone? And how do you guys want it to be? Should we described the sonic differences between this one and the other two? The connections between this one and the Joanna Newsom and the Ys Street Band? Describe each song, how they were received what they're about, general feelings and comparisons to other singer/songwriters (read Joni Mitchell, Laura Nyro, Kate Bush and Rickie Lee Jones) ? How the production was received and how critics compared Ryan's arrangements to the ones by Van Dyke Parks? It's a lot of information, it would be cool if we could use it and i have a few interviews of Joanna and we could use them to make the "Background" section even richer. Also i have a bunch of links about Joanna's tour, we could use it to make a "Tour" section. And although Newsom and Drag City didn't make a huge promotion she appeared at Fallon and performed Soft As Chalk, aside giving interviews and have articles written about her, she was even the cover of the april edition of the German Rolling Stone should we create a Promotion section and add all that information too? Eguinho (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I added some of that information on the Background and in the introduction. Now we need to focus on the new reception. I need some ideas over here! Eguinho (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
i'll have a look in the next day or two - there's an invisible jukebox interview with joanna in this month's Wire i want to read first --Kaini (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have 3 interviews: TIME, The Times and Entertainment Weekly all of them online. There's also one made by Mojo i will try to check it out! I also started to collect reviews of Joanna's 2010 tour, we have the list of shows, and a good amount of informations to build a Tour section. I don't know if there's a fixed set list, people say that like Tori Amos she likes play different songs in different shows. I don't know if it's true, unfortunate i haven't see her live yet. So if we find a setlist we could post it. I already took off the reviews of minor publications. It is a big reception section, with or without them, i guess that many big publications reviewed this, so we gotta do something to make it shorter. About all that "how the album sounds" stuff we could build another section about that, specific to that. The differences between this album and the others, what the songs are about, how each song have been described as, how they sound, comparisons to other people. We have a bunch of ideas that makes me actually believe that this article is destined to be big and readable, i hope. =] Eguinho (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
well, on the ys tour, she mostly played ys from start to finish, followed by tracks from the milk-eyed mender. i saw her in dublin - it was an incredible gig. but i would discourage posting a setlist on wiki - it would be more encyclopaedic to say something like "on the tour for the album she played selections including x, y, and z" or something --Kaini (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, i agree. It would appear like a fan page post a set list and all that. It's not the way we want to follow. So maybe report that there was a tour, the shows and where they were, the selections like you suggested, and how the tour was received (don't worry we don't need to cite every review. =] just say how it was the reception in a general way and that's it.) I wish i could see her live, too! one day, who knows? Eguinho (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

de-indent: now, i added a 30 second sample of baby birch. here is somewhere we must be quite careful. the way i see it we can have ONE more 30-sec sample. it is only an article about a single album - so what should the sample be? --Kaini (talk) 06:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, many critics have pointed Good Intentions Paving Company as the centerpiece of the album (see many, as a good number, since it's 2h of music and each reviewer pointed different highlights). Since it's 30 seconds of clip only, the song would fit better than others, cause in 30 songs we basically have a lot of elements that marked the album: jazz experimentation, piano, harmonies, her vocals changes, the more accessible melody and many of the stuff you and i pointed on the introduction (also, nice changes, you're helping a lot! =]). Although other tracks of the album also contain many of these elements like: Have One On Me, "In California", "You & Me, Bess" and "Kingfisher", some of them such as the former two and the latter wouldn't "fit" 30 seconds, it's a lot to only 30 seconds, especially the title-track, which shares so many of the characteristics of the album as a whole, but pick 30 seconds out of 11 minutes and Joanna keeps changing the song's mood constantly. A good part of "You & Me, Bess" would fit too, that one: "it is the day i wake with my ears...", but again maybe this 30 seconds wouldn't summarize the song or the album as a whole, same goes to "Soft as Chalk". If we wanted to compare productions, between this and Van Dyke Parks "Easy" would be a good choice, it "fits" the 30 seconds, but i guess that as a whole "Good Intentions Paving Company" has a better shot. Eguinho (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
i'm going to include a section of 'good intentions...' later in the article. be aware i'm also going to cut a lot of material though. a 30-second sample speaks a thousand words :) --Kaini (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That is so true! A 30 Second sample will speak more than we describing the song! Although i still think we could make a section describing them and what they're about, we sure have material to do that. I'm still surprised she made a 2h album sounds to me like 45 minutes! It's not every artist who can do something like this. Sorry if it sounded fanboy-ish. =] Eguinho (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Every Joanna Newsom record have an Uncut review placed inside the infobox, so i added the 5 star review to this one. Of course i need to be fair, i can't take off a mixed or negative review to add a incredibly positive one. So i took off the incredibly positive one by the Boston Globe and added it, so it was kinda like "an eye for an eye". I'm finishing the touring section, i collected a few reviews and dates, if you want i can post over here, before i post in the article, so we can change stuff that are not good enough. =] Eguinho (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to do a section about the songs. What they're about, the instruments, why this is a triple record. Joanna explained that. I'll se what i can do with the material, post over here, we can change some stuff and add on the article. Don't worry, it's nothing fanboy-ish like: "The amazing Joanna Newsom shows Joanna incredibly powerful and emotional, like aways", is MUCH encyclopedic, and you know some great words, so we can change a few words i put it and make it even better! =] Eguinho (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I did a tour section, it ended up too big: the dates, the reception and what she played (yes there is a setlist), so i'll just scrap this and say that she toured x places and played this and that, say that received positive reviews and that's it. When i have time, i'm too busy at work this week... after this we could start building that section describing the songs... but since no one updates this for a LONG time, maybe the article will be without it... : [ Eguinho (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What is with this capitalization? edit

Everyone knows the word "on" is not capitalized. Why is it capitalized in so many album names? It is completely contradictory to Wikipedia's capitalization policy and universal grammatical rules regarding capitalization. 69.115.10.220 (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Newsom chose to capitalize all of the words of the album title and song names. It is not up to us to say that this is wrong. We must follow the official spelling, which can be found at http://www.dragcity.com/products/have-one-on-me. SpecialK (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Have One on Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Have One on Me. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Have One on Me. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Have One on Me. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Have_One_on_Me&oldid=1202616467"