Talk:The Ting Tings

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leeds University[edit]

Neither Katie or Jules ever attended Leeds University, they MAY have met whilet gigging there for earlier bands but I doubt it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.105.214 (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did, [http: //www.ez-tracks.com/ This site], this article and this both say that they did go there, do you know any reliable sources which say they didn't? Robertcoolh (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Katie and Jules attended Leeds University. They ALSO met there whilst gigging for earlier bands but I mean it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.90 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And BBC.co.uk article "Ting Tings plan to return to studio"... 87.36.25.21 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They give a video interview where they explain that they met whilst in different bands in London. They don't mention meeting at Leeds University. Jules certainly didn't go to university anywhere. Culvercliff (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proof.

Picture?[edit]

The picture for this article is hilariously terrible. Any chance of a better one?99.238.59.26 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's very artistic, which I like, but it doesn't exactly illustrate the point... curlybap 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like it a lot - I took it! I agree it's a shame that half of the band isn't in it - but it's difficult to do this and get a close up. Holly har (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this image? Or maybe even this one? Both are from the same blog licenced CC-BY. --Reader 781 (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the one with the white background. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie[edit]

How can an artist signed to Columbia ever be called Indie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.188.11 (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All their major songs have been high up in the charts, too. I don't really think you can call them indie-pop either, as there's nothing in their stuff that's really 'twee'. Basically "indie" and "alternative" don't mean much anymore, gets me riled up, I'd rather they were just called pop really but apparently marketeers think that's a bad word. Changing it in the article will create an edit war, as inevitably most people editing the page of an artist are fans. Let it be, I'd say. LiamUK (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia's own indie article, they are most certainly not indie. They are signed under a Sony label, so they are just about as anti-indie as a band can be. Wikipedia is for factual description, not marketing buzzwords. Unless there is a better argument than "edit war," the genre should be removed. Dubium et Libertas (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, indie music is a rather broad musical genre, not an indication of fame. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

I would like to discuss if the world needs a Ting Tings Wikipedia page. I'd like to give a few reasons:

1) Their myspace page is highly popular: 271.000+ profile views, roughly 5,000 views a day, people seem to be interested in the band. 2) They performed at Glastonbury festival, which is one of the biggest festivals in the world. 3) They supported Reverend & The Makers in their UK tour and will be part of the Line Up of the NME Tour next year. 4) Both their singles were highly popular on BBC 6 Music and their limited 7 editions were sold out fairly early.

Katie White has just been interviewed on BBC 6Music (02-JAN-2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.237.50 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There should be plenty of online stuff to make a decent article. Just a brief history and glastonbury etc. radio1 playlist. regularly feature in NME etc. tours. disography. Person642 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back in the articles history to an earlier version, which I and others created with some great references. I wish the Anon's would stop removing huge lumps of text - when its referenced, why do it? The articles now back to something which represents a decent attempt from which to move this whole thing forward. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classic mistake. It's not whether the world needs a Ting Tings Wikipedia page; it's whether the world needs Wikipedia. 90.212.113.110 (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Trident13, I appreciate your work. I also find the "deleters" very annoying. Keep your head! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.220.188.241 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of the internet users of wikipedia seem to have a certain amount of envy regarding the Ting Tings. That's pathetic. Get a life!--Shiver (talk) 14:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese[edit]

Ting Ting does mean penis in Japanese, it is Chin Chin.

Just wanted to add that chin chin (ちんちん) is typically only used my Japanese children to described the penis. Also here is a dictionary entry for the term.[1] AncientPC (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese people can't pronounce the 't' sound; they have to pronounce it like 'ch'. Also, "small cute penis" is a satisfactory translation of the word, but I second AncientPC's definition. "Chin-chin" is just a cute euphemism. I know this because I lived in Japan til I was six, and my friends and I giggled over these words. Ah, childhood. Nuggit (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm familiar with the Japanese language, but does that mean that is it pronounced as Ninchendo, Chokyo, Kyocho, Akihicho? I always liked the sharp 'k' and 't' tones in what I thought was Japanese... --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 12:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's rubbish. When he should have said is the sounds ti ("tee") and tu ("too") do not exist in Japanese. Japanese is fine with ta タand te テ ("teh"), but what would be "tee" is actually pronounced chi チ ("chee"). Also, there is no "ng" sound at the end of words, so it becomes either just "n" or "n-gu" - hence chin-chin. Japanese wiki transliterates their name as "Za Tein Teinzu" 94.173.122.171 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.jisho.org/words?jap=%E3%81%A1%E3%82%93%E3%81%A1%E3%82%93&eng=&dict=edict

Merge fromKatie White[edit]

Is there a need on an article for the singer? This article is pretty stubby, as is the article on her. Her other asociated act both doesn't seem to be notable and its existence is unsourced. One good article is better than two stubs and merge here would follow standard practice. --Pretty Green (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age gap[edit]

Jules De Martino born 1967 (according to Culvercliff), and Katie White born 1983, so what, that's a 16 year age difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.46.212 (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction?[edit]

It might just be me, but I've read this three times and it doesn't make sense to me:

"Shortly after the release of the album, the band released a statement on the social network service MySpace which explained to fans that their single "That's Not My Name" had reached number 1 in the UK Singles Charts, the statement went on to encourage fans to purchase legal copies of the single in order to keep at the top position for the official Sunday Chart release on May 18th."

So it was already at #1, and then they encouraged people to buy it to keep it at #1? No, because it entered at #1 on May 18th, and then fell to #2 the following week (May 25th). So I don't get this. Can anyone assist?Tobycek (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Jules the lead singer of Babakoto? 87.36.25.34 (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping this in here, as it leads on from the recent edits about his status in previous bands, Jules Di Martino was a working songwriter and did write as a part of George Michael's team, ref here, and several other places [1]. Why does it keep getting cut? Khcf6971 (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why DOES it keep getting cut?89.101.46.212 (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

live[edit]

What do these guys do live, seeing as there's only two of them on stage, do use a backing track for the guitars/bass/whatever? Live members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.209.100 (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both can sing, drum and play guitar, Katie uses a guitar most of the time. I suppose they must for some overlaying lyrics anyway. Still me^, http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/livelounge/artist/080707_tingtings.shtml he uses a pedel thing with premixed stuff.86.139.41.195 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For live performances Jules uses two Boss RC-50 Loop Stations. Each of these contains the various loops needed to perform all their songs and are controlled with foot pedals that Jules has placed around his drum set. For example, in Great DJ Jules presses one pedal to play the bass loop, and another to play the 2nd guitar loop while Katie is playing the main rhythm on her guitar, then he presses a 3rd pedal to layer the riff for the chorus on top of everything else. Using the RC-50 in this way allows Jules to "remix" their songs live or cover any mistakes, something that would be impossible with a traditional sampler playing a backing track. Additionally Katie uses a Boss RC-20 Loop Pedal which has the main loop for Fruit Machine, a loop for Impacilla Carpisung and the "are you calling me darling" part of That's Not My Name stored on it for doubling her vocals during the climax of the song. During Impacilla Carpisung, Jules and Katie use an M-Audio Oxygen 8 to control the drum tracks while Jules plays the bass.138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age[edit]

Probably read it here that he did something 21 years ago, and she support 5ive, neither of which could of been done before age 16 or so, making them 37 and 25, at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.225.206 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Me again, ref 7 says a 9 year difference.86.139.41.195 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jules is 41. He was in the same year as me in school and I'm 41. Culvercliff (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Jules De Martino is NOT 41!89.101.46.212 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie is 36. She was in the same school year as me and I'm 36. Dr PhD (User talk:DrPHD) (UTC) @@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.90 (talk)

It only gets changed if you have a reliable source to back up the claim. There are currently sources for the existing content, therefore a lot more sources will be needed that contractict it will be needed. Wikipedia is about whats verfiable through reliable sources not truth. AngelOfSadness talk 16:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say Jules is 30, 26, 36, 42 or 41. Which are correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.90 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jules was born in July 1967. His first band Babakoto released a couple of singles ( 'Just to get by' and 'Magic Potion' ) in 1987--plenty of verification on web. I went to school ( Beal ) with him but lost contact. Believe he got married at some stage and might still be in fact. He was born in East London and lived through to his early thirties in Gants Hill before moving to the Manchester area. He is absolutely, definitely unquestionably 41 years young. So there !! Think about it-if he was born in 1979, Babakoto would have released their singles when he was 8 !!!. Look at the photo of the cover sleeves. Doesn't look 8 to me !! Culvercliff (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jules was born in Penrith. 87.36.25.36 (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's a different Jules De Martino? As far as I know, he was born in '79. 79.97.111.90 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this counts, but I checked through ancestry.com, on the register of births, marriages and deaths - and Jules de Martino was DEFINITELY born in July 1967... (The_Mayor, who has forgotten his password) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.50.72 (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, it's a different Jules De Martino. 79.97.111.90 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie was born on 8 June 1972, so she's 36. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.36.25.25 (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katie White is NOT 36! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.31.1 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes she is. 89.101.46.212 (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ages in the article have now reverted to the wildly-optimistic/record-company-approved versions. If nothing else, the content about their previous bands contradicts the stated birth years. Does anyone have any robust sources that can be linked to? All I could dig up was a local press rehash of some marketing [2] which is hardly reliable (but does provide a 'minimum' age for Katie White). Khcf6971 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just been flagged up for vandalism (which seems a little harsh) for adding a referenced birth date for Jules (1974). The reference was the same one that is given for Katie's date of birth in the article, so why should it be ok for her age, but not for his? Khcf6971 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said on my talk page, the citation for White's year of birth does state that it is 1983 - "And White's driving licence – which she has to produce when a Seattle barman asks for proof of her age – shows that she was indeed born in 1983." However, deducing De Martino's as being 1974 is original research. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just worked at a venuue... saw JDM's ID... t says July 16, 1979... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.36.25.21 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So he was, what, 8 years old when the Babakoto single was released? Khcf6971 (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to our long term troll and sockpuppeteer, 79.97.111.90, yes. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, this is it. Jules De Martino was NOT born in 1967. End of story. 89.101.46.212 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avril Troll[edit]

Could someone please revert the page back to the state it was before someone put "Avril Lavine rocks my socks" on it as I don't know how to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.48.60 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances[edit]

Shouldn't the artist's page list their live performances. TTTs have appeared in some of the big festivals this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsachinm (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could[edit]

Someone begin working on the wikip ages for the band members? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.106.80 (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence Makes No Sense[edit]

And it has been relatively copied from the source. This bit...

"This earlier experience left White and De Martino with a distrust of the music industry, so when they formed The Ting Tings - named after a Chinese colleague of White's at a boutique, who told her the name meant "an old bandstand[6]" in Mandarin - and probably helped them achieve success in Japan, where it is commented on"

Just a weird run-on. I will fix, if no-one likes it, feel free to revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahguy (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it makes even less sense. Everything can be transliterated with katakana. "Ting Tings" doesn't even really lend itself well, since you have to do the "TE"+"I" thing to get "tingutinguzu" or whatever it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.167.78.114 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Change[edit]

I'd like to suggest that a new-picture be used for the main part of the page, as the current one only shows Katie White. This image would be a good one: [[3]]

It's currently being used on the page lower down from the current image, but I think it's better than the current image.

MightyJordan (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, [Image:The Ting Tings.jpg here's another image] which could be used as it is a quite clear picture and features both members on the band. But the only downside, is that it is significantly smaller than the other two current images being used in the article. Either way, I don't really mind what picture is used but a picture with both band members is really what's needed on the infobox to give a more fair representation of the band. AngelOfSadness talk 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the picture uploader keeps adding this image, which is a) the worst picture I have seen of Katie White, b) makes her look rather ugly (which I hitherto thought was an impossible feat), and c) is probably the worst example of gig photography I have seen. For the good of this article and indeed all of mankind it needs to be removed swiftly. Feudonym (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect[edit]

The redirect for the name of the artists linking just this page? I think it could be useful at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.16.15.191 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Television appearances[edit]

Regarding edits done by G.-M. Cupertino and comments left in edit summaries completely unrelated to the actual edit:

  • "2008 MTV Awards and T4 on the Beach 2008 aren't TV series and hence don't have episodes or dates as titles" - Hence what do you call to shows emissions but episodes? Shmedpisodes?...

Many apologies but I do not know what you mean - "what do you call to shows emissions but episodes?" does not make any sense. If you are asking what do you call them, then they are called TV programmes. If you do not know the definition of an episode then I suggest you look it up on wikipedia: An episode is a part of a dramatic work such as a serial television or radio program. An episode is a part of a sequence of a body of work, akin to a chapter of a book.

T4 on the Beach 2008 was a festival that was broadcast on TV, and 2008 MTV Video Music Awards was an awards show, hence they are both simply TV programmes and do not have episode titles. I have explained this many times but you do not seem to understand this.

  • "It's a band, not an actor. Of COURSE it's "themselves"!" - Not of COURSE: sometimes they're also as just Guests or as GUESTS TO AWARDS and I've seen bands playing roles of other fictional bands!...

You are getting confused here. Even if they were "just Guests" or as "GUESTS TO AWARDS", they'd still be themselves. It's only if they're acting in a programme, as you say, if they're playing the role of a fictional band, that they wont be "themselves". However this being rather rare, I think we can stick to leaving this out unless such a situation arises, in which case this can be easily specified. Being musicians it makes perfect sense to make the assumption that they're appearing as themselves and not acting as another. Just because you copied it from their imdb, it doesn't mean that the format and exact wording has to stay, especially as it looks rather ugly, 9 repeated uses of "(Themselves), (Themselves), (Themselves).."

Also, I suggest you use either this article's or my talk page. Edit summaries are not the place to reply to people nor start discussions. Thanks for your input.

Feudonym (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced Photo[edit]

Original photo - New photo

I have changed the photo in the 'Formation and exposure' section to a more recent and aesthetic one.. The new photo was taken by myself at The Ting Tings' performance at the Variety Playhouse in Atlanta, GA on October 23, 2008.

Matthew Gibbons (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transliterated one way in the Japanese katakana alphabet?[edit]

"The band's name may be transliterated one way in the Japanese katakana alphabet — leading some to believe that has helped their success in that country" [4]

I've just noticed that theres nothing in that citation (from ManchesterEveningNews) that mentions *anything* about japan, or even band names.

Anyone else noticed this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyCassidy (talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone has just added this randomly, and thought they can use that source to back it up (when the source actually says nothing about it). I'll remove it. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 10:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um... the source attached to that quote is actually [5], which does talk about it. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 10:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the genre[edit]

Cant I change it to indie rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr1234 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are absolutely terrible ??[edit]

Umm... thats a little harsh?

Obviously someone has hijacked the page, and I'm not sure how to revert it to it's previous state, can someone look into it?

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdmota (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That vandalism got caught by ClueBot and reverted. The page should be back to normal now. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

one sentence article?[edit]

As of the time I am writing this, the content of the article consists of where they are from plus "they are absolutely terrible"

Clearly more content exists. They have a song in the highly visible film Slumdog Millionaire and they appear to have some chart hits. So where's the content? 216.163.247.1 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC) zooch09[reply]

See my reply above. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for fixing this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarjarbinksalot (talk • contribs) 18:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true :( They don't sing, not to mention I don't actually care what her name is.130.88.255.147 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Script[edit]

In the section 'Early Years', the Chinese script used is traditional script (only now used in Taiwan and Hong Kong). I have thus changed it to simplified standard chinese.

Thanks,--Deano (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Please add both scripts. One is not more standard than the other, as traditional (correct) Chinese is official in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and is widely used overseas and taught in a portion of universities worldwide. (simply copy and paste "聽") 124.244.243.111 (talk)

The word 'ting' in Chinese had multiple meanings - Chinese has only about 240 separate characters that can be written in roman script (pinyin without tonal markers) - with tones about 1000. There are 5 characters in Chinese that are pronounced 'ting' and 2 words in Chinese pronounced 'ting ting' (excluding personal names). http://www.nciku.com/search/all/tingting. The standard meaning of 'ting ting' in Chinese is listen (repetition of a character is often used for emphasis) 听听 ‘listen (listen!)'. Though they are using this to to mean thing (thing things) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.104.139 (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Holland/Backing Track[edit]

The following: "On 31 December 2008 they performed on Jools Holland's Hootenanny show to a prerecorded backing track, to bring in the new year on BBC2 in the UK along with numerous other singers and bands."

Surely needs a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.109.138 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babakoto[edit]

Babakoto released 'Just to get by' on 26/12/1987 and not May 1994. It's highest chart position was 76. This was followed by 'Magic Potion' in 1988. Jules was the drummer in this group. The lead singer was Johnny Spurling, who later had success as half of the comedy music duo Bell and Spurling. See chartstats.com for verification.Culvercliff (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, December 1987 huh?

Let's see. Born July 1979, released song December 1987, making him... 8?! Robertcoolh (talk) 15:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because he was born in '67 and not '79. He was 20. See the 'Age' section. See a site like gemm.com and search for Babakoto. This lists all the people selling the two Babakoto singles, with the year of release stated, and often a picture of the cover sleeve with Jules on the right (Just to get by). It seems some people can't accept that he's a lot older than he looks and the record company admits. Culvercliff (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about JoJo Pin? And who were all the members of both bands?

This page has photos of the record label for 'Just to Get By'. It has the P and C dates on. It acually looks like it was released in 1988, unless this is a later pressing. Think the 1994 date should definitely be changed.--78.150.149.150 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To All Established Users[edit]

In the leeds university section, theres two cited sources saying they met there, cold you please put them into the actual page?Robertcoolh (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid neither ez-tracks.com or articlesbase.com can be considered reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of Katie White[edit]

I received the following message on my talk page:

March 2009 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Ting Tings, you will be blocked from editing. Please stop trying to push your image into this article. It is not relevant to the "early years" section. If you continue to re-add it without discussion, you will be blocked for vandalism. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned that I am being accused of 'vandalism' without any satisfactory reason being given and that I have been subjected to a threat. Adding a photograph to an article in the way I have done does not fulfil the criteria for vandalism. As a result, I feel as though I am being harassed and bullied on this site. I have freely given my live photograph to Wikimedia Commons and I am therefore a constructive contributor to the project. The photo I posted of Katie White was positioned deliberately immediately next to her name. I would consider that this is an appropriate place for a photograph of Katie White. However, I accept that the photograph was not relevant to 'early years' and I have therefore moved it down the page in order to meet the above objection. I would therefore be most grateful if the photograph is left in situ this time and if the false accusation of vandalism together with the associated threat, which has contributed to the harassment and bullying that I feel I am being subjected to, could be formally withdrawn. Holly har (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is considered vandalism. You were continuing to try and push your image into the article (that could also be considered as vandalism against our neutral point of view). Therefore, I shall not withdraw my warning of vandalism - however, I've moved the image to a more appropriate place (two images at the top of a section is not a good idea) and I believe that it should be fine to leave there. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 12:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring is not vandalism if the edits are being made in good faith. Do you have reason to believe that Holly har was making a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by repeatedly adding the image? Edit warring is bad, and certainly blockable, but that doesn't make it vandalism. --Onorem♠Dil 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the definition of edit warring and it is clear that I was not engaging in that activity. Please could you cease from further additions to your allegations and other activities which have made me feel harassed and bullied on this site. I would also request that your previous allegations and associated threat be withdrawn. Holly har (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added a picture and JGXenite removed it. You added it again and Matt Gibbs removed it. You added it again and Matt Gibbs removed it. You added it again and Khcf6971 removed it. You added it again and JGXenite removed it. You added it again. It doesn't look like you attempted discussion at any point until now. You didn't break the three revert rule, but I'd say it qualifies as edit warring. I'm not trying to make you feel bullied at all. That's just what it looks like to me. I agree that the vandalism warning wasn't appropriate. In the future, you might want to make better use of the talk page and use clear edit summaries that explain your edits. --Onorem♠Dil 13:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I meant to link to edit warring. I was not trying to bully you, and perhaps I should have used a less threatening message, but as Onorem recounts (and I was about to do myself), you had continually re-added your image without any discussion until the point where I placed the vandalism message. Considering that you were reverting our edits, you must have seen our messages saying why this image was not appropriate - that is why I went for a level three warning. While I'll admit that I was in the wrong for also aiding in this edit war, a note from Holly hor once their first or second edit was reverted might have stopped this issue escalating to this point. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 16:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onorem, I accept what you say except for the allegation of edit warring as it is clear, and you seem to agree, that I have not engaged in that activity as defined by Wikipedia. Thank you for withdrawing the vandalism allegation. Holly har (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Holly har, but I must reiterate what I stated on the WP:WQA page; continued reverting of other editor's removal of your additions is in fact edit warring as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy states that one does not need to violate the three revert rule for one's actions to be considered edit warring; any repeated reverting of an edit of this sort is edit warring. At the same time, as I said in the WQA discussion, one cannot edit war without someone else also edit warring against them, so as far as the edit warring accusation, it fits both sides in this dispute.
Moving on, since JGXenite has admitted the vandalism warning was not appropriate, and there are obviously two points of view regarding the use of this image in this article, I suggest everyone stop, renew their assumptions of good faith about one another, and have a meaningful discussion here regarding whether the image should be used in this article, and in what section. Please, both sides refrain from editing until there is either agreement between the two sides to this dispute about the use of the image, or a third, uninvolved party is called in and consensus is formed. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the image has been placed in a more appropriate position, and I've moved its location so that it isn't alongside the other image, I'm quite happy for it to stay there. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge Katie White and Jules de Martino into The Ting Tings. (Note: The main oppose reason was the possible future independent fame of Katie White, with the ancillary argument that there is no pressing reason for the merge. Neither are good reasons for the existence of independent articles.) -- RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed the merge of these two articles into the main article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 00:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither member of this band has any notability outside of their part in a notable act. Therefore according the guidelines they should be merged here. No issues with page length that i can see. --neon white talk 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. You could argue that Katie's involvement with TKO and Dear Eskiimo and Jules' involvement with several other groups would satisfy "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". However, this is not a strict criterion and as it is the only assertion of individual notability, I don't see any reason for a separate article to exist. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noted those bands but dont see much evidence of them being notable and neither have an article. The criteria is basically there because you can't merge to two bands. As both TKO and dear eskimo seem to have a distinct link to this band, almost as if they were earlier versions and therefore there's no reason not to contain info about them here and in fact it already is. --neon white talk 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and nouse. Both articles were originally redirects to here before they got "spun out". I'd suggest merging them back in and creating two sections for the artists, based on the articles that are being merged in. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support. I think the pages of Katie White and Jules de Martino are both fine and doing no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electriccitrus (talk • contribs) 17:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Doing no harm' isn't really a valid reason for keeping an article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "doing no harm" is not how we decide notability. --neon white talk 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Doing No Harm" is fine. It's only Wikipedia. Geez.. you take yourselves so seriously. The world is not going to crash because someone said the Katie White and Jules de Martino pages are doing no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.241.86 (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't and never will be. --neon white talk 07:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This "may only be Wikipedia", but we have policies to follow, otherwise it would be full of all the rubbish people could think of, and it wouldn't be of any use to anyone. Perhaps you'd like to familiarise yourself with some of the policies so that you understand why we are doing what we are doing? ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support because the notability criteria are simply guidelines - not grounds for deletion. Katie's involvement with TKO and Dear Eskiimo and Jules' involvement with several other groups clearly satisfy "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". There has been a lot of interest in the article so let's see more of you voting to keep them! Thruxton (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are notable groups and all are linked to this project. This is not a proposed deletion. It's a proposed merger all the info would remain. --neon white talk 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'let's seem more of you voting' comment seems like campaigning to me. This is a discussion, not a competition. Plus, there is no intention to delete the article, just merge the contents back into this article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it canvassing yet but comments like that seriously devalue the editor's argument and suggest it is based on 'i like it' rather than guidelines, policy and the imporvement of the project. --neon white talk 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically, we are discussing, but you 'officials' seem to be dismissing every reason anyone comes up with. We get it, you don't want the pages. But there are still some people who do not support it and want the separate pages to be kept. Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.241.86 (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the points so far have been valid or based on guidelines, specifically WP:MUSIC. Editing wikipedia succesfully is not about what you want, it's about recognising what improves the project. The reason the merge is proposed is not based on anybody's personal preferences, it is based on the community consensus that non-notable individual band members should be contained in the band article. --neon white talk 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support. Thruxton said it perfectly. There's been plenty of interest and there is stuff to write about and I think they should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.31.1 (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Interest' (presuming we can possibly detect such a thing reliably) is not what we base such decisions on. The relevent guidelines is WP:MUSIC. "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." This together with "overlap" as define at WP:MERGE make a better argument. --neon white talk 18:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indifferent. It's a Wikipedia page. Although, I do think they both have notable articles that will not work if merged into The Ting Tings page (such as Katie's upbringing, and Babakoto, Mojo Pin, TKO and Dear Eskiimo articles will not all be good under the one page) but it's just a Wikipedia page. I understand that you have policies and people cannot be writing any old crap on a page, but it's just The Ting Tings. It's hardly ground-breaking information that will change the lives of many. I really think whoever merges the pages, should just do it any get it over with because

1) None of the 'I don't support' reasons are valid with you lot, and it will happen anyway 2) You're all wasting your time. It's not something even important. It's not gonna change my life if the pages are merged, and it's not gonna change my life if someone posts an "invalid" reason. Will it change your life? Will it affect you whatsoever? No, I didn't think so. I know it wasn't a "valid" post and the officials that have been giving grief to anyone who says 'I don't support' will probably come after me as well, but I just wanted to say that. Thanks 83.71.39.39 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Lisa (person who does not have a wiki account)[reply]

    • OK I propose that rather than merge / delete / redirect articles which have been written and referenced in good faith as carefully as possible, experienced editors who clearly care could look at the numerous unreferenced and poorly written articles that desperately need attention? Thruxton (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References aren't the issue. Notability and overlap is. There's no reason previous projects of little or no note be briefly covered here and, like all the info on the individual pages it already is. In fact there seems to be very little on the pages that isnt already covered on the main page. --neon white talk 07:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't support. If I wanted to read info on The Ting Tings' biography, then I would search The Ting Tings. If I wanted to read info on Katie White's biography, then I would search Katie White. Yes, I know her and Jules have little importance, but they still contain information that some people find important/interesting/whatever. I didn't know a thing about TKO/Mojo Pin/Babakoto/Dear Eskiimo until I searched the separate biographies. It's not gonna do nobody no harm for them to stay there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.73.164 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people understand. This is not a discussion about deleting information. It is a discussion about where the information will be located. The information you refer to above (providing it is accurate and reliably sourced) will simply be moved to a different page. So when you search Katie White, you will automatically be redirect to the relevant content. The reason for not having a separate page is because both members of the band fail to establish notability independent of the band. In other words they are only famous for being in the Ting Tings. For this reason, as explained at WP:MUSIC, they do not get individual pages. Instead, such information is contained in the main article for the band. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much will be moved because most of it is already in the main article. Whilst the guidelines at WP:MUSIC apply there is also a massive overlap and repetition of text here. --neon white talk 08:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case then all the better. Less work to do. All the information anyone could ever want in one neat and tidy article. Easy. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the reason for my striking out the above "non-supports" is that these IPs are all from the same ISP, eircom, and that they are all single-purpose accounts - they only reason they are here are to vote in this debate. For that reason, I suspect them all to be the same user and so ineligible to vote. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I hardly think a merge is necessary. Katie White is notable - perhaps not for her vast contribution to music, but for the constant speculation regarding her age. I have no affinity with the music (ok, the song) of the ting tings but if they are to achieve further success, it seems only logical that she should have her own page. With growing interest would come the inevitability of a de-merge. Would four hit singles constitute notability? Maybe seven? A pregnancy featured on page 10 of The Sun after a celebrity fling at chinawhite..? On the basis that band members fail to achieve notability independently, countless pages would have to be removed unless artists have established a side project, or formed a new band. Perhaps we should alert Noel Gallagher that Oasis' longevity might contribute to his deletion? I hardly think having separate articles really compromises the integrity of the project. Common sense is key. Thisrain (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She does not have any hit singles or a side project. We do not base decisons on the possible future of articles. Gossip and rumour are not significant coverage. Other stuff exists is not an argument we consider. Multiple pages are deleted and merged daily. Noel Gallagher is an utterly false analogy. Notability is a core principle of wikipedia, having duplicated info and articles on non-notable person does damage the credibility of the project. THis is not a fan site, it's an encyclopedia. --neon white talk 10:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said - I originally rewrote both articles for exactly these reasons and am a bit perplexed by the determination to interpret guidelines as 'rules'. I used the infobox celebrity rather than musician to make the point but when anon changed it on the 24th March I decided not to revert. Perphaps changing it back to the celebrity infobox would be an acceptable compromise? Thruxton (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can say that I enjoyed reading the articles about each of them, and wish they were even more detailed. It is a value-added feature and I strongly suggest that it stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.84.120 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again a merge does not remove sourced info. --neon white talk 10:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both articles provide interesting insight on two brilliant musicians who have greatly contributed to numerous bands, the most significant being The Ting Tings. These pages should be left because they are a valuable research tool for anyone trying to learn about Katie or Jules and how they have impacted pop culture. Although some editors feel that these pages are not necessary, some users will find them incredibly helpful and informative, thus, let's not deny them the knowledge . Matt Gibbs (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Interesting' is not a valid reason to oppose a merge as the info is not changed merely moved. --neon white talk 10:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There seem to be enough references to justify independent notability and pass WP:BAND. Even if a merge goes ahead, I can imagine a split becoming necessary again in the future anyway so probably not worth it. DWaterson (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whereare the sources? we don't base decisions on what might happen in the future. --neon white talk 10:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. When will we get the results of this vote? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.109.21 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just requested closure by a neutral Administrator as per merge guidelines so watch this space. Thruxton (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: seems like a sensible idea, and splitting in future wouldn't be too hard, if it came to that, because no information's ever going to be lost. 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photo of Katie White performing with The Ting Tings[edit]

I have reinstated the photo of Katie performing at ULU in 2008 which was removed. I do not agree with the person that removed it that it contributes nothing to the article as it indicates the dynamism of a Ting Tings performance, by giving some sense of how Katie dances when on stage. The other photos, where both of the band members are pictured, are very static, and the photograph of Katie on her own playing the guitar, although a beautiful photograph, unfortunately does not show her face at all as well as not indicating that she moves around the stage a lot during the live performances. Holly har (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be a good idea to mention her dynamism or somehow associate the picture with that. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 15:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I have reinstated the photograph (which was removed without discussion or reason) and added text which refers to both it and the other photograph of Katie at the Variety Playhouse. Holly har (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that photograph myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.46.212 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can people stop removing the photo of Katie performing at ULU in 2008. If you have any comments about it please discuss on this page first. Many thanks. Holly har (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the photo (sorry, I didn't notice the talk page). It just doesn't have a good enough quality (photography-wise) IMHO and I didn't find it necessary for the article either. The guitar-playing image shows the live dynamism much better and as for the portrait considerations – the face is rather obscured and disformed. As for the layout of that image: it sandwiched the text with another image on the right. I appreciate your input, but I think the article is better without that image. —Quibik (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments about the photo. I disagree with your concerns about its quality but respect your opinion. It is actually the only photo on the page which shows nearly all of Katie's face as this is completely obscured in the Georgia picture and in the other two photos the microphone is in front of her mouth and chin. The alteration in her appearance due to her dancing around is entirely natural and not an artificial distortion. In accordance with your constructive comments I have moved the photo to the right and made it smaller so as to make it fit on the page better. Holly har (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the image has been removed by several editors (including myself) and reinstated (mostly by you -- Holly har) over the last few months, but I still don't really appreciate what it adds to the article. The subject seems to be caught mid-breath, and so appears distorted, and most of the field of view seems to be out of focus. In truth, the article probably has two too many pictures. I would vote to keep the current the main pic, which covers the two band members, and also the 'Katie playing guitar' image which covers the 'dynamism' aspect. Khcf6971 (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese and Japanese[edit]

Seems like it was removed before but I am re-adding the bit about penis in Japanese, as it is sourced in the Guardian article towards the bottom: It is a name they've subsequently come to question, having learned that in Japan, where they enjoy considerable success, it means, "small, cute penis". Also, reference 12 does not say anything about an "old" bandstand thus I am removing the word "old" 94.173.122.171 (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ting ting also mean 'listen' in Chinese 听听 http://www.nciku.com/search/zh/detail/%E5%90%AC/1315157 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.104.139 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jools Holland 2010 - 'Day-to-Day' track?[edit]

anyone know the name of the track [lyrics 'Day-to-Day' repeated] performed on Jools Holland BBC music show in 2010? is it to be on any future album ? 79.66.208.230 (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second album[edit]

There needs to be greater clarity with regards to the background behind the recording of the second album.

The recordings from the sessions in Berlin - which were to go towards the album known as "Kunst" - were altogether scrapped. This must be made clear. The track "Hands" was to be the lead single for the album.

After not being entirely pleased with the finished product - and probably due to the disappointing chart placing of single "Hands" - they scrapped the album.

They then started from scratch to produce "Sounds From Nowheresville".

Here are some references that can be used: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iGYcVe8NdSbai9Ojx7FD_gwt16vA?docId=N0172711322658562111A http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/newsxtra/music/9399591.Phoenix_from_the_ashes/ http://www.spin.com/articles/ting-tings-nowheresville-lps-haunting-artwork-and-jukebox-sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.114.136.2 (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did they really tour Mars?[edit]

The current article states "The band toured Mars and Malaysia in early 2009 as part of the Big Day Out Festival lineup". I've checked a few previous versions and this seems to have been the case for a while. Am I being ignorant or is this vandalism? 80.45.129.137 (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism from 19 December 2011, thanks for pointing it out it's now been fixed. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Article[edit]

Great article out in the Guardian that focuses on how brilliantly difficult the group has been to work with and where are the delays have been in their upcoming album. Not having edited this article before, I wasn't sure how to work it in. Any suggestions? —Zujine|talk 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing[edit]

HI,I am editing this piece for project in one of my classes. Please do not edit it for the next two weeks. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.148.155 (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited[edit]

PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

We've got into a series of sudden reversions on this article and some associated ones about the Ting Tings' nationality. Essentially, it appears that they're UK citizens and would therefore normally be described as 'British' in an international forum like Wikipedia (much like one would describe Texans as 'American' in media outside the US). As another editor has apparently had unspecified concerns, I've changed this to the clunky-but-neutral 'UK-based' for now. If anyone else wants to get into debate about this, this is the place... John Snow II (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Ting Tings. 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 12:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Ting Tings. 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 11:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on The Ting Tings. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Ting Tings. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Ting Tings. 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) 02:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Ting_Tings&oldid=1195553749"