Talk:The Mint Chicks

"Surrealism" in the article

I received this message on my talk page, sent by BK Punk (talk · contribs):

The band have asked for their page to be edited to be more surreal to fit in with their current marketing campaign, or for some other reason.

As I responded on my talk page, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a promotional website, and everything in it should be true and verifiable. — Insanity Incarnate 08:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not marketing. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a democratic way of hammering out information about a given subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rubannielson (talk • contribs) 08:34, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

wikipedias inept sence of humour

i would like to point out that wikipedia has a page stating that troy was in either the baltic and in england via some kind of evidence. ofcourse that is bull, but it's still up on wikipedia.

why can't people have fun?

most people would realise that the stuff written in the page is a big joke and won't take it seriously. maybe wikipedia nerds who moniter this stuff should settle down abit and leave good natured fun alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anti tiger (talk • contribs) 09:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

"The Mint Chicks are an experimental lesbian hyphy unpop group from Nowhere."

it's funny, but not that funny. i use wikipedia, probably out of dear stupidity, for quick facts and when i'm looking up a band, i take in what's written on the page. fix it please! the mint chicks could do with some proper publicity! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phaan421 (talk • contribs) 09:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

to Phaan421

this page has been altered in amusement. the mint chicks, through a bulletin and a blog on their myspace page have asked people to mess with the page. because we can. if you can't see the difference between fact and fiction. then go away. you should know that wikipedia is a unreliable source, at university you would loose marks for using wikipedia as a source, because like this page is proving, anyone can edit and change the pages.

most of the information in the article is far fetched, therefore get a sence of humour. and learn to know the difference between fact and fiction. and the page is hilarious with all this new stuff, don't change the page!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anti tiger (talk • contribs) 10:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism and page protection

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages ... or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. ... Committing blatant vandalism, however, is a violation of Wikipedia policy; once it is spotted it should be dealt with accordingly" (Wikipedia:Vandalism).

Any edit made to "screw up" the Wikipedia page is vandalism, plain and simple, and will be dealt with as such. If necessary, I will lock the page so only admins can edit edit. I don't want to do that, but if established editors want to break the rules and vandalize the page, that's their choice; I just deal with what happens as a result.

I also got a message from User:Rubannielson on my talk page stating that "The band prefer that the page be edited in an objective manner by it's^[sic] fans." I've got no problem with objective, factual edits being made to a page. When edits are clearly false, then I've got a problem.

If the band wants a page to be messed with by their fans, hey, they can create a forum on their Myspace or personal website for that. I'm not going to tell them how to run their site. However, in turn, they do not have the prerogative to override Wikipedia guidelines and introduce garbage to their article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

the inaccuracies that are already here

I appreciate your need to protect the integrity of wikipedia, however, there are so many inaccuracies on this page as it is that it is more untrue now than it would be if it were completely surreal. There is no greater lie than something which is almost true. This page was already full of objective opinions and you have done nothing but lock in the first wave of inaccuracies. The later more interesting and entertaining ones? Those have been locked out and changed back. Have you got any references or proof regarding the so-called 'facts' that this version of the page contains? I think what you're doing really is undermining the status of wikipedia as a democratic system by giving privileges to a select few and denying the majority their right to develop the truth of the page on their own. At this point not even the members of the band, nor any of their fans, nor the record company or any of the journalists who know anything about the band can access the page. Only the gatekeepers of wikipedia are allowed access, and I'll bet you they have never heard of the band until now! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.100.219.36 (talk)

Welcome to the world of article protection. It gets frozen at the last version pre-vandalism. If you'd like to suggest a change to the article, give the corrected information and a reference here, and any established editor can make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Further, the band members shouldn't be editing this article anyway: it's a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is... If the fans want to edit the page it's 'vandalism', and if the band want to edit the page it's a 'conflict of interest' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.100.219.36 (talk)

If the band want to edit, it's conflict of interest, yes. However, if they stick to well-sourced facts, it's not going to be a problem. If fans want to edit constructively, it's not a problem. If they want to add nonsense to the article, it's a problem. Enough new editors have added nonsense that, to prevent further disruption, the page has been locked. Yes, it might have punished some legitimate editors--although I note that nobody has made any suggestions of edits here on the talk page since the page has been locked, so there's no evidence that any of them are out there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the mint chicks have taken new zealand music to a different level.They have been my fav band for the past year and i am now fully faithfull.There music is the soundtrack to my life at the moment and i fully praise the last two albums. i was at the Big Day Out this year and i had the time of my life dancing constantly to there out of it music.I wish them luck for everything they choose to do and look forward to supporting there next album. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.237.59.63 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC).

Oh, God. Honestly.

Come on, America. Lighten up a bit. Wikipedia isn't even a certified method of research. My university thesis would get the bootass if I used this site. Editing the band's crap on MySpace isn't as fun. The Mint Chicks wanted it this way... If you want a high calibre of research, go to your nearest library and dig out the database there... thats what every person with half a brain cell would do. Phatphishpatty 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it's true that you can just go to a library, but bands like The Mint Chicks here, might not be found in any books, etc. And most information is found on the net anyway. Infinitynz 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Album Pages

First off, this page seems pretty messy, but has good content in it. This could make it a good page. Also, why has noone made a page for any of the albums? They are good albums too! Infinitynz 05:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:F**kthegoldenyouth.jpg

Image:F**kthegoldenyouth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Crazyyesdumbno.jpg

Image:Crazyyesdumbno.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Octagonoctagonoctagon.jpg

Image:Octagonoctagonoctagon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

new bassist

there's a new bassist in the band as of late april 2008. don't know who he is though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-buzzed (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No there isn't. Ruban is playing bass. 124.157.91.78 (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

they were a 4 piece at the hoomegrown festival, who was the fill in?? definately wasn't logie back on bass. ruban was on guitar. (121.73.75.243 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Nah, it was logie. honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.91.140 (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted fansite from external links

Looked broken and Kaspersky antivirus flagged it as having some trojan keylogger Bullshit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slymagpie (talk • contribs) 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Mint Chicks. 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/20140419131439/http://www.nzmusicawards.co.nz/2009/10/29/2007-winners/ to http://www.nzmusicawards.co.nz/2009/10/29/2007-winners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029193602/http://www.nzmusicawards.co.nz/2010/03/29/2009-winners/ to http://www.nzmusicawards.co.nz/2010/03/29/2009-winners/

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) 03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)