GaragePunk.com Wikipedia Page

[mark young]

Who here's any good at wikipedia? If someone gets one started, I'm sure we can all contribute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Music_websites

garagepunk.com needs to be here.

[IDON MINE]

Now that looks great, waaaay cool Kopper!
I like the "gamut."



kopper said:

Redirects to this page now, and I updated it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network

Feel free to edit/add info that you think it could use. Thanks!

mark young said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk.com

Get editing, boys!!

[El Tiki]

and once again:

congratulations for the good work dr.kopper!

[Johnny Singles]

I’ve done a bit of a re-write, added an infobox and spit it up a bit. Made it a bit more wikipedia-ish. Expanded it a bit but 90% of the last edit’s info is still in there…

Smash it up, tare it all down, do whatever, go for gold… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network

[Jannell]

Just added a great link to the references section. Check out this article I found. Pretty good!
Examiner, Indianapolis The Raw Sounds of the Garage Punk Podcast Ne...

[kopper]

Hey, thanks for finding that! And thanks also to Johnny Singles for the splendid rewrite! You guys rock.

kopper

Jannell said:

Just added a great link to the references section. Check out this article I found. Pretty good!
Examiner, Indianapolis The Raw Sounds of the Garage Punk Podcast Ne...

[Michael Kaiser]

The GaragePunk Podcast Network Wikipedia page is still marked for deletion if certain criteria aren't met. What can we do to prevent this from happening once and for all?!

I never realized that Wikipedia was so heavy-handed - especially in light of the garbage that they allow on there with no trouble.

[mark young]

Evidently, "DreamGuy" noticed Kopper made edits, and i guess editing the article about something that you own violates some neutral point of view policy.

Wikipedia's had issues and gained some bad reputation, so I guess they're trying to enforce a few rules now, to keep things neutral.

Michael Kaiser said:

The GaragePunk Podcast Network Wikipedia page is still marked for deletion if certain criteria aren't met. What can we do to prevent this from happening once and for all?!

I never realized that Wikipedia was so heavy-handed - especially in light of the garbage that they allow on there with no trouble.

[Eastwood]

"Chiefly English but with numerous multilingual contributors." -- yes! I helped with that, GANGSTA!

[Johnny Singles]

Jesus-frigging-christ there are some wiki-nazis out there!

This 'DreamGuy' just seems to have some sort of chip on his shoulder, it looks like he's just scoured the thing looking for this to make it seem questionable...

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).
I'll admit that linking to all the podcasts could possibly be seen as self-promotion (it's a bit of a tenuous claim though...) but he also removed the quote from Kopper about the founding of the site from the history section! How are the creators intentions for founding a site not relevant to it's history?!

He also claimed 'major edits by the site owner' on Sept 17th even though the thing has barely been significantly changed since my re-write on Aug 15th 2009. 'SmackBot's' point that the article was an 'Orphan' and needed linking into it from other pages was fair enough but it seems that all the issues the page has now are a result of DreamGuy's faffing...

Think I might just have to go and undo his changes out of spite...

Is this someone you've pissed off Kopper?

[kopper]

Johnny, I have no idea who that guy is. But it doesn't surprise me. Wikipedia's editors are notorious for being pains in the ass. In hindsight I guess I should've created a separate login before I did any of that editing... none of which was "major," by the way. I was simply updating it so it was correct!

So it appears as though Wikipedia has flagged the GaragePunk.com page for several issues... notability, linking, conflict of interest, and references. See below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GaragePunk_Podcast_Network

I can't touch it. I need someone else to go in and fix it so that they're happy. I thought it was fine before... and it probably was until someone saw that I'd made a couple changes and put two and two together. I know a few of you guys have contributed to its development in the past, so I'm hoping you guys can go in and fix it so that they're happy. But it looks like the few edits I've made (after it was already set up by someone else, mind you), caused Wikipedia to flag it as being "edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter."

Johnny, just go back in and restore the edits and then argue with him about it on the page's discussion page. What you posted above is all you really need to say.

Thanks!

[mark young]

He just needs an externally sourced footnote.

I think Kopper needs to round up some GP record labels that have wikipedia page and have them link to GPPN wikipage. It'll help with the missing notoriety within the wiki network. And kopper, do all your editing at work, without being logged in.


Johnny Singles said:

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).

[kopper]

You can't edit Wikipedia anymore unless you're logged in...

mark young said:

He just needs an externally sourced footnote.

I think Kopper needs to round up some GP record labels that have wikipedia page and have them link to GPPN wikipage. It'll help with the missing notoriety within the wiki network. And kopper, do all your editing at work, without being logged in.


Johnny Singles said:

He's put a 'citation needed' on the claim that it's "the leading[citation needed] social network, media center and blog portal... etc..." even though that's upheld by the rest of the paragraph (18,500 hits a day, 3000 members, 'Featured Podcast' on iTunes, what other proof in needed?).