Talk:The Lawrence Arms

Band photo

This picture is not correct. That most certainly is not The Lawrence Arms.

Actually I think that is them but it's a really old pic. I'll try to get a newer one.

It is Neil and Chris for certain, but it's definately not Brenden Kelly... Brenden is white, so it's definately not him.

Umm, that guy looks pretty white to me. Dyed black hair yeah, tan yeah, but still white. It's definitely Kelly.

That picture does look pretty old. I think a better picture would be the one of them with the Sharpie mustaches.

At this link: [1] they have the picture of them with the Sharpie mustaches. That would be a good one to use.

The picture has the correct members, but it isn't current (at least 2 years old). 24.99.184.158 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed picture. It's updated, but the old version is still on wikipedia. --Simsimius 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like that photo got deleted. A lot of editors & admins don't like the use of promotional photos for band articles because it's reasonably simple to replace them with free images. So if somebody has a picture they took of the band (like a live photo or something) that you'd be willing to upload to Wikimedia Commons, it could probably be used without any difficulties. --IllaZilla 19:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

A number of people have added a link to a Lawrence Arms fan site (lawrencearms.org). The link has been added and subsequently removed several times already. For guidelines on what is appropriate to link in Wikipedia articles, see WP:EL. A fansite, such as the one that has been added here, is inappropriate as A) it is not a reliable source of information, and B) it is not relevant to the article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote websites such as fansites and message boards. Only those sites that are the most informative, reliable, and relevant to the article should be linked. Should anyone re-add this link, it may be considered spam and a complaint could be made. --IllaZilla 19:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm keeping a running tally of how often this link has been added and removed and by whom, so as to establish a pattern. 15 times since July 12, 2007:

1. added 18:46, 12 July 2007 by 75.57.106.26 (Talk); removed 21:55, 12 July 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
2. added 03:28, 13 July 2007 by 75.57.106.26 (Talk); removed 05:01, 13 July 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
3. added 18:32, 13 July 2007 by 75.57.106.26 (Talk); removed 20:24, 13 July 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk) - left a notice on user's talk page
4. added 22:35, 14 July 2007 by Spw52889 (Talk); removed 23:22, 14 July 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk) - left a notice on user's talk page
5. added 17:08, 27 July 2007 by Spw52889 (Talk); removed 07:46, 28 July 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
6. added 18:26, 29 July 2007 by Spw52889 (Talk); removed 19:39, 1 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk) - started a discussion on the article's talk page
7. added 05:59, 2 August 2007 by Spw52889 (Talk); removed 06:53, 2 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk) - left 2nd notice on user's talk page
8. added 04:09, 4 August 2007 by 67.186.120.235 (Talk); removed 05:49, 4 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
9. added 06:15, 4 August 2007 by 75.57.98.240 (Talk); removed 08:04, 4 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
10. added 16:03, 4 August 2007 by 75.57.98.240 (Talk); removed 16:04, 4 August 2007 by VegitaU (Talk)
11. added 03:52, 6 August 2007 by 75.57.119.116 (Talk); removed 09:18, 6 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk) - left a notice on user's talk page
12. added 10:54, 7 August 2007 by 75.57.108.10 (Talk); removed 14:50, 7 August 2007 by VegitaU (Talk) - notice left on user's talk page, received an uncivil response.
13. added 18:34, 7 August 2007 by 75.57.108.10 (Talk); removed 18:36, 7 August 2007 by VegitaU (Talk) - 2nd notice left on user's talk page
14. added 04:12, 8 August 2007 by 75.57.108.10 (Talk); removed 04:55, 8 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
15. added 08:42, 9 August 2007 by 124.190.208.201 (Talk); removed 16:35, 9 August 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)
16. added 04:42, 9 November 2007 by 75.57.127.11 (Talk) removed 08:34, 9 November 2007 by me, IllaZilla (Talk)

So far only one message left on a users' talk page has recieved a response, and in was an uncivil one. No one has responded on the article talk page yet. I'm noticing a pattern here, and it's pretty clearly linkspam. --IllaZilla 16:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am replying here to the issue you addressed on my talk page. I have successfully nominated this article for a week-long period of semi-protection. Until the 16th of August, unregistered and newly-registered users will not be able to edit this page, hopefully saving you from the headache of constantly having to revert vandalisms. -- VegitaU 19:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I don't use bots or anti-vandalism applications so it's frustrating reverting all these vandalisms manually. I appreciate it. --IllaZilla 19:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"DrSturm - Revert: Until their myspace page points to lawrencearms.org, it's not their new official site." their myspace does point to lawrencearms.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.61.155 (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC) \

Really? Cause this is what it says when I look at it:

the Lawrence Arms: General Info

Member Since 6/25/2004

Band Website thelawrencearms.net

I could be wrong, but I doubt it. DrSturm (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you're 100% correct. The .org site is a fansite/message board. Completely unofficial, fails the tests for reliability per WP:V, WP:EL, & WP:NOT#LINK. It's a decent site, and well-maintained by the people who put it together, but anonymous editors keep adding it to this article in order to draw attention to it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote fan sites you've made. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)