Talk:The Only Ones

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Pop music

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Albums

I have added a couple of album pages (The Only Ones and Remains) but they're very brief, just a track listing and an image of the album cover, so if anyone wants to expand them feel free. BTW, 'Babys Got A Gun' in the Remains page track listing is spelt that way (without a " ' ") on the cover and LP itself, so it's not a typo on my part. Ian Dunster 14:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Band photo

The band photo currently in use isn't free, and seems to have a dubious fair use claim. Does anyone have a genuinely free (e.g. self-taken, public domain) picture that could replace this before the current one is picked up and deleted? Notinasnaid 12:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that photo is scanned directly from an official release. I don't see why it's use is not fair use. Just as well photos of this band are hard to find let alone self-taken or public domain. Case 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the claim made for it on the image page? The words make a claim that simply is not valid. "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of videotape covers to illustrate the videotape in question ... qualifies as fair use". This picture is illustrating a band article, not an article about a videotape. It seems pretty clear cut. Notinasnaid 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Less obvious, but still a major problem, the image has been cropped so as to remove the video name etc. An cover illustration, even if used under a valid claim for fair use, cannot be cropped for detail. Notinasnaid 08:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then perhaps an original scan of the entire cover will suffice? If labeled properly as an image of the band found on the cover of an official release? Probably not so feel free to shut me down and delete the image.Case 05:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A scan of the entire cover will probably be OK if you are specficially illustrating something that is talking about the product (video?) in sufficient detail, at least as the rules are usually enforced today. It can't be used as a band photo per se. I suspect, in fact, almost all fair use video and CD covers will in time be removed, not because of a change in the rules, but because the existing rules will be more strictly enforced. Notinasnaid 07:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protect

I am forced to semi-protect this page for one day, the amount of spam originating from multiple IP addresses is very high. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

http://www.network54.com/Forum/285921/ has been repeated deleted from the external links by a "spam bot" which has been programmed to remove all network54 links. It is the most active Only Ones forum on the internet. There are no Only Ones Official or Unofficial websites. Does anyone have a legitimate reason for it not to be listed here? If there is no objections within the next 7 days, I will re-instate the link.

172.214.142.142 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Links normally to be avoided at [[WP:EL]]:

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

That's a legitimate reason for it to be removed. --Onorem 17:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the question does not lay with users to exclude, the Burden of proof lies on the inclusion of the link, not exclusion. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link had been there for months. A spam bot removed it as they were getting rid of network54 links. I re-instated it as there are so few dedicated Only Ones sites and is worthy of inclusion. The spam bot started to revert my edits, then you started repeatedly reverting the edits whils refusing to discuss the matter.

172.214.142.142 18:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before just because it was there doesnt mean it should have been there in the first place. Also you only left a note on my talk page after you called me a vandal and had jumped several different IPs. I left a note on one of them. But you still havent explained why it should be linked to since WP:EL states that it shouldnt. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline only says "normally to be avoided". It doesn't say a forum cannot and mustn't be linked to. If there was an official website and forum and numerours fansites there would be little need for the forum to be linked. As it stands, there are no Only Ones websites at all, official or unofficial. It is the only solely Only Ones dedicated website or forum on the internet.

172.214.142.142 18:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current links cover what need to be covered. relevant material can be found on those sites. Just because its the only dedicated site means nothing. There is no valid reason to add that link except to promote a fan forum, provide un-reliable information, and to have your favorite site linked to on wikipedia. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-insertion of the LyricWiki link. 4.4.07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveritt (talk • contribs)

Please do not add links to LyricsWiki or any other lyrics site that infringes copyright (an official band or record company site would be OK). This is per Wikipedia:External links. Also please note that LyricWiki is in no way official, or connected to Wikipedia, so "Wikipedia official lyrics" is misleading. Notinasnaid 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lyric link. Steveritt 23 April 2007

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.theonlyones.co.nr/
Triggered by \bco\.nr\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Another girl, another planet” is NOT about drugs.

I am so sick of reading music articles that claim virtually every song is about drugs! In this case the writer of this song has even directly responded to this claim and refuted it saying it’s not a hidden message song but about what it apparently is about: girls, and love.

It’s a symptom of Idiocy to believe in the drugs and music myth that artists all write music on drugs—not true—and that somehow every song that has cryptic lyrics is somehow about drugs. As an artist myself, I also understand why so few songs are about drugs: it’s a vulgar topic that doesn’t lead to much inspiration.

There’s no citation for the stupid assertion either.it also accused the band of having songs that are ALL about drugs as it’s dominant the E. WHERE IS THE CITATION? Just giving my two cents. Wikipedia is not respected as a source of information and this is one of the reasons why. People in basements with no knowledge about music and art perpetuating the myth that creativity must all be drugs because they themselves can’t fathom creating beautiful and obscure things because they aren’t artistically talented . It’s actually the opposite of the myth, drugs kill creativity, hence Peter not writing any songs after the band broke up and picking up crack and heroin regularly. He only wrote songs again when he temporary quit drugs in the 90s only to use again and not create. I can also give anyone a million examples of how drugs crush creativity and how so few songs are actually about them more in passing references. 2600:1012:B1B8:AECA:F903:1163:5B6D:4B14 (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]