Talk:Clint Catalyst

COI issues

User:Tallulah13, who I have an ongoing dispute with over this article, claims to have created this image. [1] This would she accompanied the article subject on a trip from Los Angeles to Germany, and suggests far more involvement with the subject than she has admitted to. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not giving any more of my time to this. I only came here to post this additional related information link for anyone who might be interested... [2] Thank you Tallulah13 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow -- what a spam-fest. It's going to take some time separating the wheat from the chaff. Most of the blog/self-sources will have to go so we can make this something useful and encyclopedic, not promotional.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Birthday siorees

I've decided to do one unilateral move and removed all the birthday sioree names here. Beyond concerns about undue weight, a lot of names are thrown out there (some not notable, other without sources), with the sources even provided are at best gossip (not in accordance with WP:RS) and is just plain inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apocalypse Theatre collaboration

I've removed the entire Apocalypse Theatre collaboration information here. While the sources are somewhat reliable, without Apocalypse Theatre have any notability, this starts to feel like a WP:COATRACK concern (a bootleg version, a track on MySpace and then a blatant advertisement doesn't bode well). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trendsetter

This seems like an extended exercise in name dropping ("clint attended a party with a celebrity! Omg!!") almost entirely cited to blogs, social networking sites, and commercial sites. Sticking here since it is a large chunk removed in one fell swoop, but the more i think on it, the more im convinced it doesn't belong. Should have this boiled down to actual sources and real information in a day or so. But must say this is one of the single greatest fests of bad sourcing i've ever seen.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Trivia}}

Buzznet has Clint Catalyst as a designated "Buzzmaker," a term the site uses for members "who are top tier." Buzzmakers are identified by a pink star on their page. Out of the entire site, only 40 users are designated with the "Buzzmaker badge."

June 13, 2006: L.A. Weekly’s ‘Style Council’ noted Clint among guests at the private/invite only show of musician Peaches as making an impression with a “to-die-for feathered hat.”

April 4, 2007: Noted in print among the fashion show "Front Row/A-Listers" at Project Runway winner Jeffrey Sebelia's standing-room-only premiere at L.A.'s elite 2121 Lofts.

July 17, 2007: Frontiers magazine runs a two page article in which Clint is deemed the 'King of What's Next'.

October 18, 2007: "Clint Catalyst, at BOXeight, is on top of the trend with a miniature top hat like the ones being sported all over London." - Lawrence K. Ho, Los Angeles Times

December 7, 2007: Nexia Holdings’ Holiday Runway event is hosted by “fashion icon” Clint Catalyst.

January 2008: Instinct magazine deemed Clint a “red-carpet-stalking fashionista [who’s] in the moment before anyone else is.” ""Instinct Magazine"".

February 2008: Catalyst is a Metromix party host

March 5, 2008: Fashion Journalist Caroline Ryder deems “Clint Catalyst a queer fashion figurehead.”

May 14, 2008: Metromix magazine deems Catalyst a "Fashion Renaissance Man."

In Out.com’s 2008 coverage of ‘Power Gays,’ Clint Catalyst is listed as one of the three “Buzznet celebrities” who, “one 14-year old girl at a time [is] beating the hype machine at its own game.” In the same article, journalist Japhy Grant goes so far as to describe him as perhaps an “unintended role model” since “At long last, for mainstream middle American tweens, the popular kids are weirdos and outcasts.”

July 29, 2008: The popular website Gay.com refers to Catalyst as a 'Scene King.' When asked to describe his inimitable personal style that has garnered this title for him even within a definition of "scene kings" on UrbanDictionary.com , Clint replied "If Isabella Blow had a male counterpart who was portrayed in a Mark Ryden painting and weasled his way out." In an interview for the Peta2/Fur Is Dead campaign, he simplified his 'look' as being focused on "Dark themes, bright colors. Hats, pomp, humor...and circumstance. A motto of mine when getting dressed-up? "Nothing exceeds like excess."

March 14, 2009: Journalist Gendy Alimurung's coverage of Gen Art's fashion week kick-off show at the historic downtown Los Angeles theater states: "There are even the requisite few celebs. Clint Catalyst, looking handsomely vampire-like, is sitting across the aisle."

Clint Catalyst COI

I was wondering if it is now OK for someone to remove the 'conflict of interest' tag at the top of the Clint Catalyst article. Now that the page has pretty much been brought to wiki acceptable standards by User:Bali_ultimate and User:Ricky81682, among others.

I do not believe that my editing is really a concern of COI. It was just that I did not understand all of the wiki editing rules. I apologize for angering anyone. I think that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was slightly out of line with the way they handled the issue, but I am over it.

I have meet Mr. Catalyst once in my life, but I do not think that that should forbid me from contributing useful information in the future. Thanks to all who have been helpful & kind.

And thanks to User:Ricky81682 for offering to help me with images and to User:Neutralhomer for being so chill and understanding. Tallulah13 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

With the recent updates by User:Bali ultimate and User:Ricky81682, I think we can pull the COI template. I am not sure why it was necessary in the first place. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 23:31

I would also say thank you to User:Bali ultimate , but he/she does not seem to be very nice, he/she has deleted 2 of my neutral messages from their talk page and just ignored me. One message was actually saying thanks for the work on getting the page more acceptable & talking about the inappropriate comment they made about the photos making the page look ugly, the other message was asking why they were ignoring me. I was nothing but polite & I think it really sucks that a wiki editor would just ignore someone who was being nice and trying to learn. Tallulah13 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Music Collaborations

What would be an acceptable way to mention/cite his musical collaborations (such as the track he did was rapper Deadlee)? It's currently for sale on Amazon and I tried citing that link as proof, but it was removed. This track should be considered notable, even if the prior wording or citation was considered inappropriate. Granny Bebeb (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Which specific citation do you think is the best one? Bring it here for us to look at (I'm assuming you were the earlier IP? Doesn't matter...) That something is for sale at Amazon is not generally considered a reliable source. But I'd like to look at the specific source you think is best before giving my full opinion.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my newbie ignorance, but how does the fact that Amazon has the CD for sale, with the track mentioned, not count as "a reliable source?" If Amazon is unreliable, what does constitute a "reliable source?" (jayson23)

Metromix

Why is Metromix allegedly "unreliable"? It is owned by the LA Times and is its entertainment newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granny Bebeb (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Documentation on Clint Catalyst development deal

I have spoken directly with Mike Woodlief, Mr. Catalyst's literary agent, and have copies of deal memos between Fred Paccone (CEO, World of Wonder), Darren Stein, and ABC Family. These are background documentation which I am using as research for an article on Clint Catalyst, but as business correspondence, they would not be appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic article.

If there is some way to provide this documentation in a talk forum, please let me know.

jayson23 (talk) 22 April 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC).

If it isn't covered by a reliable source we're not interested and don't care who you say you've talked to.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a listing of 31 episodes of ANTM as producer. That should count as a proper citation for "television producer" right? I'd edit it back myself except I'm not sure how to get the IMDB page to show up as a reference in that #a footnote at the bottom of the page. Could someone please edit that back in and add the citation to his IMDB page to document it? I don't know how to do it myself. Megalion (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

IMDB? Uhm, no.Bali ultimate (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many different types of television producers. The word 'producer' was attached to Catalyst's name in the credits of 31 different episodes of ANTM. HOWEVER, a 'greater' reason (in terms of "credibility") why TELEVISION PRODUCER should be re-added to the Clint Catalyst article is: He has been credited as an Executive Producer on major network projects, as well as Co-Exec. Here's a URL for the proof of the EP title for the sake of fact-checking:

[3]http://www.thefutoncritic.com/search.aspx?type=people&q=Clint%20Catalyst

This URL is in regard to a project covered in Variety magazine ("Fly-Over Has ABC Aboard")-- which, incidentally, has already been accepted as one of Catalyst's Wiki page footnotes.

Moreover, regardless what Hullabaloo's {or anyone else's} opinions are on the topic (citing "America's Next Top Model," etc), the simple fact remains that the Internet Movie Data Base itself lists Clint Catalyst as a Producer before any other title (actor, et al). The Variety magazine article is listed within the press articles posted on Catalyst's IMDB page, despite the fact that countless development deals are not covered in 'the trades.' In this case, however, the role of a major network (ABC) granting the series co-creator an Executive Producer credit supercedes any speculation (regarding work on "ANTM" or otherwise) by Hullabaloo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.111.116 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than complaining about the Big Bad Wolfowitz, you should work on factual accuracy and WP:BLP and WP:RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Watch the attitude. Are you actually claiming that the IMDB is not a reliable source? You removed an entire bibliography under a false claim of "copy and paste" along with countless other pieces of well-sourced factual information (if you were concerned about the sources, you could always add the "citation needed" tag instead of deleting information), added a blatant attack claiming that he is "best known" for a brief cameo in a news story few have likely heard of (I'm a big fan of the guy and I certainly hadn't) despite having written high sales-ranked books, and now you're taunting editors? Something tells me there's more to this situation than concern for the quality of constructive edits here. Granny Bebeb (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally, speaking, no, IMDb is not reliable enough, as defined at our policies. Some discussion can be found here with a more detailed policy proposal at Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. Generally, alone it shouldn't be used. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly unreliable/not supported?

How is the fact that he was Beth Ditto's stylist "not supported" by the page cited? Can it possibly be any more clear than "Stylist: Clint Catalyst"?

How is an ISBN number not proper citation to prove that he was a contributing author to the list of books he contributed to? One look at the book in question can prove this. If there is any argument, why not simply tag the books with "citation needed" for additional proof, rather than removing them entirely in one fell swoop?

Why is the title of "The Flyover States" being removed, in addition to the fact that he was clearly a screenwriter as supported by the cited link? For that matter, how is the IMDB "an unreliable source" in proving his production credits? Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I second everything that user Granny Bebeb says above. The continued vandalism on the Clint Catalyst article is absolutely uncalled for. User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has just as much of a COI with this article as he claims that I did. He should not be making all these edits. This is ridiculous!Tallulah13 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: If the discussion here on specific points isn't productive (and it doesn't look like it is), I would suggest you folks consult dispute resolution services, rather than repeated notes that aren't responded to. I've found Wikipedia:Editor assistance to be very helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Contributing authorship

Ok, before we go on further with the fight over this section, let me see if I understand. Catalyst "contributed" to those short stories and books. What exactly does that mean? It doesn't look like he wrote or edited them? Did he write part of the stories? What exactly was his involvement? The style guideline at Wikipedia:Layout#Works says to include things he "created", so specifics would be helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He contributed short stories to these books (which are all anthologies). There should be no problem with it, every other author's page I've looked at on here has similar works in their bibliography sections. Granny Bebeb (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an anthologized short stories listing for John Updike, Stephen King, Sara Paretsky, Gene Wolfe, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Norman Mailer, Thomas Pynchon, Harlan Ellison, Joanna Russ, Ray Bradbury, or Michael Chabon. Of course, non of these authors have "bookstore" sections on their own websites where they hawk anthologies containing their short stories. Just more spam from another one of the article subject's ill-manner friends. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the attack isn't necessary. However, he does have a point. It's not common to include anthologies. However, I think I'm going to open an RFC and get some more input. But still what was his involvement with the books? Those aren't anthologies. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He contributed a story he wrote to each of the books. And Hullaballoo, I just went to his website and clicked the Bookstore link for the first time to try to see what you're talking about, and I don't even see all of these books. Wouldn't SPAM be linking to places to buy them instead of simply crediting his work? And yes, I've seen anthology work credited in the bibliographies of Emanuel Xavier and Elizabeth Donald (which was a featured article recently). Granny Bebeb (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Donald was not a featured article; it's barely more than a stub for a minimally notable writer. You are, as usual, saying things that aren't true. It is very unusual to see lists of individual stories in Wikipedia articles on any writers, even those noted in particular for their short stories. See Raymond Carver for the paradigm. Several articles do have lists for award winning short stories. But that does not apply here. The fact that you can dig out a rare exception to consensus practice does not mean that consensus has changed or should be ignored. It means the exception should be revised in line with consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsure why this section is up for debate. Items in anthologies are perfectly legitimate works cited; they are always included in curricula vitae, have standards in major citation style formats such as MLA [4] and APA [5] and, perhaps more importantly, are an important and established way for younger authors and scholars to build their oeuvre. The items under "Short Stories" have appeared in anthologies, and are legitimate. These items are easily sourced, and it appears they have been, accurately. Thinkpiece (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We have our own WP:MOS, instead of following the MLA or APA. Incidentally, what brought you to this specific discussion for some reason? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a former editor of Clint's and also an academic who studies digital and social media. I've been following the edits on this page, but didn't feel the need to weigh in until this section came under dispute. My post was intended to reply to the RFC on whether anthologized items belong in this section. I understand that Wikipedia is beholden to precedent and consensus on topics such as this—I was not suggesting that we follow MLA or APA style, but rather attempting to shed some light on what exactly anthologized items are (since it seemed that there was confusion in early posts) and some perspective on the fact that they are quite valid and important works cited, always included in standard offline academic and literary parlance.--Thinkpiece (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Awards

I'd also like to know why there isn't a awards section on Catalyst's page? I have noticed when glancing through the page's history, the "Awards" section was deleted in its entirety. I'm wondering why this edit was made, as the awards for example, winning the Murphy Foundation for Literature and Language short story competition are of absolute historical relevance.Clockworkpink (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)clockworkpink

Um, when was there an awards section? I can't find it in the history. If you please help describe it, that'd be great. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they were removed in this edit. Here's why I'd support their removal: there are no citations for any of those awards other than the "Renaissance Man of the Year" one, which only cites a blog. Per our policy for biographies of living people, unsourced or poorly sourced material about living, whether negative, positive, or just questionable, should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Per our policy of what is a reliable source, the blog linked isn't appropriate. Now, for an awards section, we could say Cottonmouth Kisses was a finalist for the Lambda Literary Awards, but I think the mention in the published works section is enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should Works include anthologies

• Specifically in regards to this addition. While Wikipedia:Layout#Works says to include all works "created", it doesn't seem to follow with a number of articles, as Hullaballoo notes above. I'm also not sure since the only source seems to be the ISBN numbers as to the books themselves, a primary source rather than a secondary one (but probably the best thing available). While the general notability standards aren't relevant, I'm a little concerned when books like the Underground guide (with 23 listed contributors are claimed as "his" works. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have much to add to what I've said above; consensus practice is not to list books anthologizing individual stories among a writer's works. I'd also point out that, under WP:Book sources, an ISBN alone is not adequate sourcing. "An ISBN registration, even one corresponding to a book page on a major book distributor database is not definite proof that such a book actually exists. A title may have been cancelled or postponed after the ISBN was assigned. Both ISBN and other registration have been abused in attempted hoaxes on Wikipedia in the past." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• • NeutralHomer approved the use of ISBN numbers as the sole book citations. However, I'll work on obtaining additional sourcing for these books. Granny Bebeb (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

collapses more inappropriate attacks Bali ultimate (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
First off, thank you for your recent edits to Clint Catalyst's page that exemplify a notably open-minded, democratic approach. Admittedly, following Wiki protocol can be more than slightly intimidating for a newcomer. User:tj crowley is correct in his assumption that I, myself, was discouraged from contributing to Catalyst's page after the condescending response I received from User:Bali Ultimate. As many of Catalyst's readers are of a younger demographic, I am sure that is often also the case. Notetheless, regarding the current RFC: Should Works include anthologies, please note that regardless of how many contributors have pieces in an anthology—insofar as the example you mentioned (The Underground Guide), the non-fiction article ("Clubland in El Lay") was written by no one other than Catalyst. It does not appear in any other published book, anywhere. As per Wikipedia:Layout#Works , the list as is currently cited is within the accepted parameters: it is a work written by no author other than Catalyst, and is published in a single book. The notion that listing Catalyst's contributions "doesn't seem to follow with a number of articles, as Hullaballoo notes above" could just as easily be countered by an obsessive search throughout Wiki to cite all the articles that do. However, I find it curious that the issue is up for debate, when—as noted by the lengthy comment by User:tj crowley at the top of the talk page, the inclusion of works cited had already been approved on May 6th of 2009 by User:Neutral Homer. No one has posted a list of every periodical in which a short story, article, or poem Catalyst has had published. On the contrary, this is a case of AP:ASF—the simple fact that in terms of published books, here are a few where works appear exclusively. Hullaballoo's quip in response to User:Granny Bebeb that this is "Just more spam from another one of the article subject's ill-manner friends" is, yet again, testament to the fact that he is a biased editor quite quick to make assumptions. Other than the noted COIs with the few of Catalyst's friends who also have Wikipedia pages, under what authority does Hullaballoo know whom any of Catalyst's associates or friends are? Does he reside in Los Angeles? For all we know, he could be one of Catalyst's disgruntled neighbors. Otherwise, what motivation does anyone have (quoting tj crowley) to act as such: "Over the course of a month, Wolfowitz has reworded information so as to deflate its value by violating WP:ASF, completely deleted information that was approved by Wiki administrators at an earlier dates, and repeatedly hacked away at Catalyst’s page on a near-daily basis in gross violation of WP:NPOV"? If anyone in this scenario is ill-mannered, it is User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Through his process of what I've seen referred to as "Wikiwankering" or "Gaming The System," it looks to me like Hullaballoo has done nothing but destructive edits in terms of encylopedic information being presented: he deleted Catalyst's literary and academic awards, disrupted and created confusion in terms of disambiguation through the deletion of information in the page's lede (yet still remains listed among Categories at the bottom of the page)...with the hundreds of edits he's made, the list seems endless. Removal of Catalyst's bibliography would be championing yet another instance of COI-related vandalism. When perusing Wiki to make sure I used the proper terminology to post even this RFC response, I came across this: "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny."

• Yes absolutely.I'm of the the belief that an author's "Works" section should include anthologies,as the relevance in Clint Catalyst's case is that the stories do not appear in any other books. No magazines are listed among the section in question. These are books.Clockworkpink (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)clockworkpink

Note that I moved Clockworkpink's comment down here, for clarity. Generally, the fact that they don't appear anywhere else I don't think really supports their inclusion. We aren't including every piece of writing he's ever done as that would be giving undue weight to them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would seem that we're agreeing regarding undue weight. As I stated,the listings are merely the additional books in which Catalyst has works published. When I went to the Bibliography section of his site, I stopped counting at around 150 additional listings of periodicals in which his short stories, poetry, and articles appear. Clockworkpink```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworkpink (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Andy Warhol Museum/Uberstars exhibit

Is the blog coverage in Variety magazine sufficient for WP:RS? "The Stylephile" is a section of Variety.com (note: "Powered by Variety" in upper right-hand corner):

http://www.thestylephile.com/blog/330000033/post/130028013.html?category_id=30688

What about the editor's mention of the exhibition (on the far right hand side)? This is a literary journal, BTW--not a "fan site" http://www.vagabondagepress.com/90401/V1I11IN1.html Granny Bebeb (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Blogs generally aren't adequate but there is a very limited usage for statements of opinion. I'm not sure of it, especially since again, it's really just a mention of him being at the gallery. I would have a really hard time justifying a link to his piece (there are levels between he's there, he's featured there, and his piece in particular is featured there and I'm really struggling with a passing mention of his name there). For the journal, I'm more encouraged. That feels more independent and serious, even if some of the interview and photos aren't typical journalism. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Following this comment, I have revised the section here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

External links and primary sources

I came over here from WP:COIN. I don't really care to get deeply involved but I have a couple of suggestions. One is to remember there is a difference between an external link and a reference. If you want to say that Clint produced a youtube video, for example, then citing the video itself would be considered at best a primary source, and at worst original research, both of which are frowned on. Better would be to cite a secondary source, such as a book or newspaper, that talks about the video. If you can't find such a secondary source, then you need to consider the possibility that this isn't notable enough to include in a Wikipedia article.

If you do want to cite something like a youtube video as a source, please cite it (inside "<ref></ref>") rather than link it (inside "[]"). Inline external links are not normally acceptable. See WP:EL. Rees11 (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - the usage as a reference was not optimal. However, I think the youtube piece is a good external link for the article - it's a demonstration of the subject's art and there do not appear to be any copyright issues.--Kubigula (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that the Spoken word piece is only in the article because of this citation, which has no mention of the piece in particular (the earlier link to gallery itself really doesn't cut it). While we don't follow our full notability standards for everything, it starts to look like spam to just include non-RS sources as external links to advertise his work, without any serious independent sources about it. I would have no problem with the YouTube link directly in the article (probably as a reference) if I was secure in knowing his piece actually had a RS with some coverage behind it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an external link to have an RS - unless perhaps there is some dispute about its authenticity. The question is whether the link is useful and adds value to the article, while not running afoul of the link restrictions or avoidance criteria. He is a spoken word performer, so I see a link to one of his performances as adding value to the article. I don't think a performance link is usuable as a reference, but, if not done in excess, it's fine as an external link.--Kubigula (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

But why not just link to his YouTube channel? That would seemingly make more sense than just his specific piece. I could live with that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is better - I didn't know it existed. Good call.--Kubigula (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good. Consensus on something has been achieved. High five! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Screenwriter and other issues

collapsing innapropriate attack on other editors here Bali ultimate (talk) 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I should start by saying that I have had a Wikipedia account since 2006, but until today have not felt the need to contact anyone regarding any egregious page edits. However, when I went to the page of Clint Catalyst today it had extensive edits on it. I am a former editor of Clint's and have published more than one piece by him. I am familiar with most of the anthologies deleted by folks here. Time and again on Catalyst's page edit history, literally hundreds of edits were made by an editor with a previously noted COI with Catalyst: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz has a history of COIs and Inappropriate Edits by Gaming The System, as well as a history of previous tendentious edits under a prior user name. However, there are so many points to bring up on the vandalism to Clint Catalyst alone; I’m afraid I’m going to be taking up a great deal of space just mentioning a few of them. For starters, Clint Catalyst is a WGA-accredited screenwriter and television producer, so I found it curious that these credits are no longer mentioned in his entry. I specifically remember this information, as I am in the process of developing a feature-length book adaptation for which I purchased the option, and hence have been researching/interacting with writers listed in the WGA-West directory: http://www.wga.org/agency/MemAgency.asp (a simple "search" available for employers from the organization's main page--wga.org, section "If You're An Employer," fourth option in the pull-down menu: "Find a writer") provides the name and contact info for Guild-affiliated writers. I just double-checked, and Catalyst's name comes up in this search—along with dozens of articles in which he's named as a screenwriter in a google search when one types "screenwriter Clint Catalyst" in quotation marks. That's rich. If you enter "screenwriter Clint Catalyst" into the Google search engine right now, you get exactly one hit -- to clintcatalyst.com. [6] Google News, all dates, gives zero hits. [7]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC) It is clearly stated through research that Catalyst has co-created and co-written pilots for two separate networks, which would thereby grant him the "24 points" to qualify as an accredited screenwriter (information provided provided on the WGA website, as well as the Wiki WGA screenwriting credit system page—stated, incidentally, to make a point, NOT to go against Wiki policy and reference the site itself). I even saw a URL for Instinct (magazine) in which an interview was conducted with Catalyst during the WGA strike; the lede of this article describes him as a “striking WGA screenwriter (at press time)…” Over the course of a month, Wolfowitz has reworded information so as to deflate its value by violating WP:ASF, completely deleted information that was approved by Wiki administrators at an earlier dates, and repeatedly hacked away at Catalyst’s page on a near-daily basis in gross violation of WP:NPOV, claiming many of Catalyst’s accolades are “not-encyclopedic.” Also, for the sake of maintaining a neutral POV to the situation, I did notice that some of the information added in the process of these contributors violates “WP:RS,” but find it unfortunate that in the process of trying to build an encyclopedic article, Hullaballoo “bullied away” User:Tallulah13 easily by intimidation, and two other users (Megalion and jayson23) did not exactly receive helpful information upon attempting to improve the page. In fact, one might infer that the code of conduct displayed by a second editor, Bali Ultimate, has a distinct correlation to why neither User:Megalion nor User:jayson23 continued editing the article, either. The bottom line is: “Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources.” If one follows the timeline of Hullaballoo’s actions, he repeats the mantra “Follow WP:BLP and WP:RS” to other users; then acts contrariwise himself. There are many instances in which Hullaballoo removed a footnote under one premise, then two weeks later claimed the lack of supporting evidence—“no citation”—for the removal of other information from the page. How is it that Hullaballoo is permitted revert information that’s been previously approved by editors and admins first in a Talk Forum? Why is it that when User:Granny Bebeb followed the LGBT link to enlist the mentorship of a volunteer in the WikiProject LGBT studies group User:Larrybob, asking specifics such as “What guidance could you give to make Clint Catalyst’s page "jump-class"? Also, how can the quality of a page be improved…etc” I can’t seem to find anything as a result except a new dispute being opened: that of “Should Works Include Anthologies”—when the addition of this section was approved by User:NeutralHomer on May 6th? This has been copied to the proper email and discussions on this site. Thomas Jefferson Crowley (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC) This article grossly violates several Wikipedia content policies, particularly WP:RS. I'm trying to clean it up, but the response has bordered on impermissible edit warring -- particularly the reinstatement of an obviously unsourced claim with the edit summary "These are sourced and legit." If this ends up in dispute resolution, it will likely attract attention who will want to remove far more of the article than I'm ready to, if not delete it entirely. So rather than reflexive reversion, how about reviewing the content policies involved, properly sourcing whatever needs to be sourced, and get this into shape as an encyclopedic article rather than an incoherent shrine. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jessicka and Christian Hejnal wedding

Ok, User:69.238.165.217 added this mention of Catalyst's attendance at the wedding of Jessicka and Christian Hejnal in 2007. I removed it, thinking there was no mention of him at all, but in fact, he is mentioned on the last page as noted here. Repeating my view, regardless of the importance of his speech, his involvement, and generally of the marriage itself, it's not worth including. Yes, the LA Times is a reliable source so that's not the issue. It's a questions of undue weight. Including every part of his social life starts to approach the problems we had with the birthday siorees, as noted above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand here are my thoughts about the wedding inclusion.

I believe it to be an event/movement - not only a union of two people but an actual time where some really interesting, notable and talented LA musicians, models, artists, photographers, and writers came together. It marks a time in LA and certain scene. I think it worthy of a one line mention in the Catalyst article. Ricky I understand why you find these people irrelevant, but know that is your opinion and lots of others find them important. Unlike a birthday, a wedding (hopefully) happens once in a couples lifetime.

Can we find a balance on these articles?

"author Clint Catalyst, who waxed lyrical. ("Jessicka and Christian's union is an integral part of an ancient umbilical cord, connecting multi-talented musicians to visual artists to writers to performers to designers, in a symbiotic relationship that academics of future days will pigeonhole as a 'movement."

This part above, I wish could be put into the article and conveyed without being a peacock. Hopefully I'm helping you understand why I think it needs to be kept. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Insert text that makes a wikipedia article sound even more like a cross between a press release and an advertorial in US Weekly? No thanks. No one is arguing "relevance" or "importance." We are arguing matters of appropriate weight and encyclopedic style. What is encyclopedic about having attended a wedding party infested with b and c list celebrities? Was this covered in some non-trivial way in reliable sources that would establish this was some particularly important wedding event? Was this some formative event in this person's life? Could a reader learn something important about this person by reading that catalyst "waxed lyrical" followed by some of his truly awful doggerel? (yes those were leading questions. I already know the answer to them all is "no."). Alrighty then. Again, Wikipedia is not myspace.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was covered in a non trivial way. I believe it connects Catalyst to others in his peer group, hence the reader learning more about him. You say these people are b and c lists celebrities, fine. I have no need to even categorize them as celebrities at all. They are simply people who have done things that I and a lot of other people find notable. I have no idea why certain users have such a bias about these people but I think it sucks.

The fact that they have done anything artistic at all in this day and age is a miracle. Edie Sedgwick has a page and really what did she do besides hang out with other b and c "celebrities" of her time. Yet after her death became a legend, go figure. (I don't want to go off on a tangent) If you took the time to read the entire article like I did maybe you'd see that there is something special about this wedding. It unties a certain group of artists in LA. It would give the reader more of idea of the group in which Catalyst is a part of. I understand you don't feel the same way as I do. I am fine with agreeing to disagree. I am here to learn. Perhaps if certain users weren't such elitist jerks and tired to help new users rather then constantly insult articles about people they feel passionately about and threaten them, then perhaps there would be less of a learning curve.

I resent the constant myspace digs from people here. I dislike myspace. In my free time rather then go on social network sites, I've been helping to improve articles here on wikipedia by finding the proper reference links. I can see by your user page that you like to make users feel bad by posting accidental or stupid comments they made have made. This is a real shame as you come off like a very smart person and could probably guide people to be better here, rather then poke fun at them.69.238.165.217 (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you need help listing Edie Sedgwick for deletion, I'll help you, even though I think you would lose and frankly I have to agree that I'm not exactly sure why. And what you believe about the event is not relevant. It's called original research and we try to fight that here. That is why we focus on secondary, not primary sources. Would a biographer describing Catalyst's life include that speech? The fact is that in two years, the only notes about the speech are articles discussing the wedding itself and not "the great summit of LA artists." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ha! come on of course I don't want to list Edie Sedgwick for deletion. Look it's not about the speech per say. It's more about the fact that the man was there with a bunch of other notable LA artists whom had never been in the same room before. The articles states this. This couple brought together a scene. Not on stupid myspace but an actual amazing gathering. But look I can agree to disagree. Seriously, I won't die if it's not included in the article. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And PS. Did you even read the article - honestly? Just curious. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave the name-dropping for the gossip pages. I once attended a small party with Ric Ocasek and David Byrne. Byrne was fascinating and quirky, Ocasek was quiet and fussed over his wife and kids. Shall we write an encyclopedia article about it? I mean, there I was, standing next to and talking to famous people (and not just c-list famous)!Bali ultimate (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Bali I get it OK? Enough with the insults and the condescending remarks. I got it you think these people are c celebrities. They suck! They have no right to be on wikipedia, only myspace!!!! I Got it! At least they do something with their lives, right? This whole sitting on the computer thing sucks.

"I once attended a small party with Ric Ocasek and David Byrne" Yeah right? Maybe that would be of note if you were somebody (even c list) who had a wikipedia article and not just a user page. j/k.

OK, guys you got all of your digs in on me. Good job. I'll behave. You've broken me. =O) for now. 69.238.165.217 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be of note on its own no matter who i am unless there was something biographically important or notable about my brief co-location with those other people. And by the way we keep quoting WP:NOTMYSPACE because it's part of the culture here, not because there's anything wrong with Myspace. It has its place, of course. As does wikipedia. There is very little intersection between these two places, and that is the issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Early Life

Are there no sources for some of the early life material? Also --- the quotes at the end of that section seem a bit out of place and overly dominant. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny how the only thing I thought had a decent encyclopedic tone here had all its references stripped and replaced with inappropriate links. I'm tired of playing with people who don't care about our policies and would rather argue about including wedding speeches. On you if you want, since that giant quote doesn't even source properly (WP:BLP anyone?). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Its a shame in a way -- for the subject too I have to say. Better surely to have a short, tight, encyclopedic article than a long rambling puff piece. I see though that this article has generated plenty of arguments so I may give it a pass. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ricky81682, it's unfortunate that with all the interviews that have been published and magazine articles written about Catalyst, it's astounding the small amount of pertinent, encyclopedic information that the page presents. For instance, what is considered an acceptable "citation" for something such as an academic award? Can a letter be issued from a college's Dean of Students? Do the certificates need to be scanned? (And if so, where are they posted?)

What about credits as a "stylist"? For instance, in the case of Margaret Cho, a person can do a search on Amazon.com under 'Clint Catalyst,' and the exact page and credit comes up in Taylor Chang Babian's book Asian Faces. How should someone go about citing this information, when obviously an entire book isn't posted on-line?

Also, why is it the title of "screenwriter" still an unresolved issue, when Catalyst's listing within the Writers Guild of America West website seems it'd be as legitimate a citation as one could possibly have?" Clockworkpink```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockworkpink (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Because there's not a shred of substantive independent third party evidence from a reliable source that Catalyst has actually written a screenplay in a professional situation. The WGA membership is not limited to screenwriters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

::WGA membership isn't limited to screenwriters? Can you please provide proof of this claim? So far, I've found: 

"The WGAw represents writers in the motion picture, broadcast, cable and new media industries."

He is listed in the site's option to "hire a signatory writer", as well as the search engine which states "Find a Writer

    Please enter the name of the WGAW Writer you wish to find below. Entering one name in the search field will result in the last name of the writer being displayed."Granny Bebeb (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a secondary source? Is he called a screenwriter by reliable sources? Whether or not he wrote one or is with the WGA isn't the point, it's whether other reliable sources describe him as a screenwriter. He's been called a stylist, he's been described as having done performances of spoken word, his book has been described, all by reliable sources. For the screenwriter, we get "if you look this up, you can see that he's a member of the WGA." It's a matter of putting the proper weight on the claim. As a compromise, would people accept, "He's a member of the WGA" but not the category? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources mentioning him as a screenwriter - here: (Highlight under the picture - the site's new layout has the lede appearing as white on white, but he is mentioned as a "WGA screenwriter")...I need to find the others again. Granny Bebeb (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that one of the articles that's already been linked in the entry for some time, which seems to have no issues with WP:RS, also mentions him as being a screenwriter. http://blog.peta2.com/clint_catalyst/

Shouldn't this be sufficient to reinsert the title? Granny Bebeb (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections voiced otherwise, I went ahead and inserted this. Granny Bebeb (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Citation for spoken word in the lede

Here, I removed the LA Weekly cite for spoken word performer from the lede. Per WP:LEDE, the lede doesn't need a citation. Second, this article has only a small passing mention of Catalyst (let alone his spoken word) and while we aren't censored, I don't think the article is of the appropriate tone, and I think it further adds to my personal view that LA Weekly is more of a blog than a reliable source which shouldn't be used here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am developing my feeling as well. It's a tough one. Some weeklys like this in some cities are highly reliable for some things (think of The Stranger for coverage of local politics, or the old village voice) but some are poorly edited trash-rags. I guess they need a case by case assessment, and also, what must be considered is which part of the book the info is in. The New York Post is a reliable source for stuff in its news pages (at least in theory) but one couldn't then take something from Page Six and consider anything there reliable.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The LA Weekly is no Voice, thats for sure. However; it seems that the problem may be more in how it is used --- a passing note is conflated to a non-trivial ref in some editors' minds. These pop BLP are a nightmare sometimes. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the LA Weekly article refers to the publication's notorious elimination of its fact-checking department, an important factor in determining whether a source meets our requirements as "reliable"/sufficient under {{WP:RS]].

The Clint Catalyst Debacle

collapsing inapropriate attack on other editor by brand new user.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know it probably seems as if I’m just another Clint Catalyst supporter but I more just a person whom has been sitting backing watching certain editors’ bias possibly cloud their judgement when editing Clint Catalyst. User: Bali ultimate I’m speaking to you specifically. Your nasty tone, constant snide remarks, and threats of banning users - does not sit well with me. You are acting like a playground bully. I can find examples of this behavior if you wish. Perhaps rudeness isn’t against wiki laws or etiquette but it’s most certainly offensive when trying to have having a rational discussion on a talk page. Avoid indirect criticism?? A reminder.... "Avoid use of unexplained scare quotes and other means of implying criticism or making indirect criticism when you are writing in edit comments and talk pages. Out of respect for other editors, criticism of another's edit, of phrasing and choice of terminology, or any criticism of or critical response to talk page commentary and participation ought to be made clearly, directly, and explicitly in a manner that may be easily understood and replied to." Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They are a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they are for forging agreements that are best for the articles to which they are attached. If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your way is better. Like science, the improvement process employed by Wikipedia is iterative and the critical analysis of prior work is a necessary part of that process. If you are not prepared to have your work thoroughly scrutinized, analyzed and criticized, or if your ego is easily damaged, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. Do not label or people or their edits. " I’ve seen a lot of really bad behavior here. You can just scroll up and look at this talk page in order to see what I mean. A little patience and undestanding will go a long way while trying to get this page up to par and meet wikipedia standards. Fairness Is A virtue (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) A redlinked users first talk page edit is to launch an attack on me. I've never threatened anyone with a "ban" and to say i have is an... untruth. Good luck with poisoning the well, straw men, whatever the fallacy de jure is. But in the end, making this even more of a promotional article about this minor scenester aint going to happen. And since you're obviously a new user, i direct you to our policy pages. Start with WP:V WP:RS WP:WEIGHT WP:NOTE WP:BLP and WP:NOT. Some direct advice. Don't make it about me. Make it about the content.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring

At present the article seems long on subheads and short on content. Is it not possible to have a more logical structure -- lede, early life, career -- with then sections for his fiction, fashion career and spoken word (I suggest cutting acting as its very thin -- can include as an aside somewhere) and end up with list of publications etc etc? I'd like some feedback as this is just a first suggestion; as it stands the article is structurally messy despite the fact that people have obviously spent time on its content Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

go for it.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- I'll see if anyone else chimes in; then make the plunge. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also suggest scaling back or eliminating the "spoken word" section. I'm not quite sure what a "spoken word" artist is -- note the dispute at spoken word -- and when tracking down the references used in the article, it appears to me that most of the cited "spoken word" performances are simply readings/recitals of his already published work. An impression reinforced by suffering through a spot-check of the videos. Many authors read from their work without being classified as "spoken word" performers; the category misses some of the most prominent, like Ginsberg and Dickens. I don't see a solid claim here, and suggest the section could be reduced to "Catalyst frequently gives readigns of his works, at events like A & B (cite)." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Given some new editors' proclivities for abusing editors who seek to improve this article; I think I'll give editing this article a miss. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all of his spoken word pieces (including some on video) were from already published works. Also, what about Nicole Blackman, performance poet? There's more to spoken word performances, such as Catalyst's, than simply reading. -Granny Bebeb

File:Cc-tub.jpg

Why is the "Clint Catalyst for Lipstick Prophets Photo by Sasha Sheldon" photo marked for deletion? Lipstick_Prophets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipstick_Prophets even have their own wiki page.So to me that makes it relevant? ClockworkpinkClockworkpink (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.36.46 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_23#File:Cc-tub.jpg. There's no further point to continuing this discussion here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

LA magazine

The link [8] for Los Angeles magazine just redirects to the main page and a search for him results in nothing. I've also searched on Lexis and cannot find any articles by him there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is you clearly have a COI and shouldn't be editing the article anyway. I've reverted your edit. Assume good faith of the original editor and until we find proof that he ISN'T any longer writing for LA magazine, then we can remove it. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography section

I'm unclear on why items where the subject of the article contributed to anthologies have to be removed from the article. There are several articles in Wikipedia that have sections such as "Anthology Contributions" and lists of articles which the writer has written; see for instance Lauren Slater. --Larrybob (talk) 06:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See the RFC above. Just because it's used in some articles (I'm more interested in GAs and FAs as examples but still) doesn't mean it follows the MoS. I don't really care either way though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As discussed before, the practice in Wikipedia is not to include such lists except in unusual circumstances, typically for otherwise uncollected works by very significant writers. And the Lauren Slater section may be captioned "anthology contributions," but it's actually recognition of her work in a highly notable series of anthologies, Best_American_series. If Clint Catalyst ever gets a story collected in The Best American Short Stories, that will not just be listed, but highlighted in the article's text -- just as the recognition was handled in Slater's article. Vanishingly few prose authors have Wikipedia bibliographies extending beyond book-length works, as is generally true for songwriters and poets, absent extraordinary stature or works receiving special recognition. Whatever exceptions you might find should be cleaned out, not replicated. If Raymond Carver doesn't have a list of his short stories is his article, if Bob Dylan doesn't have a list of songs in his article, if Allen Ginsberg doesn't have a list of poems in his article, and if Joyce Carol Oates doesn't have lists of poems, plays, essays, or short stories in her article, I see no reason to extend special treatment to Clint Catalyst. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

His works that are published in these books are not collected elsewhere. Considering that Catalyst has a cult following as opposed to the types of authors you are mentioning, I'm not sure the comparison seems fair. It is not a list of all of his short stories, far from it - note that all of the individual works in his own books (which are primarily short stories) are not specifically named, nor are his numerous chapbooks and other print works. Granny Bebeb (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Clint Catalyst. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724153633/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA318539.html to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA318539.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lambdaliterary.org/awards/previous_winners/paw_2004_2006.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.foreverplaid.com/about-the-event.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110107033916/http://www.frameline.org/festival/film/detail.aspx?id=1927&FID=47 to http://www.frameline.org/festival/film/detail.aspx?id=1927&FID=47
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.horrornews.net/exclusive_news/_news_01.2010/01.27.10.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120402212506/http://www.asitecalledfred.com/abouttown/38.html to http://www.asitecalledfred.com/abouttown/38.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.out.com/detail.asp?page=3&id=23673

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clint Catalyst. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820020721/http://inthisweek.com:80/view.php?id=103551 to http://inthisweek.com/view.php?id=103551
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thestylephile.com/blog/330000033/post/130028013.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clint Catalyst. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214232823/http://www.virulent.org:80/converg4/past.html to http://www.virulent.org/converg4/past.html

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) 13:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Clint Catalyst. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819164239/http://www.canalplus.fr/index.php?pid=2863 to http://www.canalplus.fr/index.php?pid=2863
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://inthisweek.com/view.php?id=103551
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629183525/http://www.homocinema.web.iq.pl/gay_movie_joshua_tree_1951_a_portrait_of_james_dean.html to http://www.homocinema.web.iq.pl/gay_movie_joshua_tree_1951_a_portrait_of_james_dean.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917091245/http://bumbershoot.org/history.htm to http://www.bumbershoot.org/history.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20020716135606/http://www.outfest.org/fest2002/fest2002.platinumartist.html to http://www.outfest.org/fest2002/fest2002.platinumartist.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130121084541/http://www.darkartsfestival.com/2001/body/performers.html to http://www.darkartsfestival.com/2001/body/performers.html

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) 14:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)