Jump to content
 

The blink 182 general discussion topic


Aria

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, daveyjones said:

not so much that. just that lesser beings (like youtube click-rackers) will always frustrate us. the villain always takes the easier path. it's why batman is so broken.

Also, Bane is the reason Batman is so broken.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That popped up in my YouTube recommended videos earlier today. I watched part of it before I had to go somewhere, and I thought it was well-written. So, take that as a compliment at least, @boxelder! That is stupid though. I've seen people do the same thing with with Star Wars videos, were they're word-for-read just reading Wookieepedia articles. So lame.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, boxelder said:

man. anyone else had this pop up in their YT notifications? decided to take a look at it and the dude just rips off word for word my wikipedia articles on the band... i get that the wikipedia articles were more or less collage art, a shitty research paper combining sources upon sources. but i poured a lot into those when i first got into blink, and have continued to year after year. i've seen plenty of sites repeat word for word my articles -- even the band more or less uses the wiki lead for press releases now  -- but something strikes me as particularly ill about this one. all these youtubers are just mining the algorithm to rack up views as fast as possible.

if my sob story didn't convince you, please notice he also steals the board's new header at 4:25 @Ari

 

Alright, lets rally a war cry.

Who's for shit posting / disliking this video? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2019 at 4:21 PM, boxelder said:

 it just pisses me off that he takes so much from it, word for word.

question on the dude ranch page (i don't know if this is your contribution or not boxy)... it says that apple shampoo and dick lips were the second and third singles. that might be clarified:

dick lips was an EP released by cargo just before dude ranch came out. and apple shampoo was released as a single in australia only, also before dude ranch was released.

to my knowledge, only dammit and josie were sent to radio in the U.S. as singles, because they are the only two songs which we have promotional-only discs for.

sidenote: the advance CD release of dude ranch say "featuring dammit, pathetic, and josie" meaning that MCA intended for pathetic be a single, but never released it as such.

img-7140_orig.jpg

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, daveyjones said:

question on the dude ranch page (i don't know if this is your contribution or not boxy)... it says that apple shampoo and dick lips were the second and third singles. that might be clarified:

dick lips was an EP released by cargo just before dude ranch came out. and apple shampoo was released as a single in australia only, also before dude ranch was released.

to my knowledge, only dammit and josie were sent to radio in the U.S. as singles, because they are the only two songs which we have promotional-only discs for.

sidenote: the advance CD release of dude ranch say "featuring dammit, pathetic, and josie" meaning that MCA intended for pathetic be a single, but never released it as such.

things like this are the subject of a lot of edit wars on wiki... randos come in, and go "wait! apple shampoo wasn't the first single, dammit was!" and it goes on and on. as i said, all the blink pages are 95% my creation, but i tend to stay out of the minutiae like that. another thing is there's not a solid online source for the release date of both australia-only singles, and i try and keep the pages sourced with only books/trusted sources anyway (sometimes to my dismay lol).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, boxelder said:

things like this are the subject of a lot of edit wars on wiki... randos come in, and go "wait! apple shampoo wasn't the first single, dammit was!" and it goes on and on. as i said, all the blink pages are 95% my creation, but i tend to stay out of the minutiae like that. another thing is there's not a solid online source for the release date of both australia-only singles, and i try and keep the pages sourced with only books/trusted sources anyway (sometimes to my dismay lol).

LOLL your new avatar

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@daveyjones, know i'm still bitching, but i thought i should share. all of this point is rendered moot by the fact that wikipedia is free to use. but my gf showed me a site analyzing copyright law and it states:

Quote

 

An author’s original compilation, arrangement, or selection of facts may be the subject of copyright, but not the facts themselves.


 

i guess what was incredibly frustrating to me is that for his video, he chronologically scrolls down my article, rarely changing words. in the wiki articles, i want to make a narrative of sorts that's compelling from the sources i collect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, boxelder said:

i guess what was incredibly frustrating to me is that for his video, he chronologically scrolls down my article, rarely changing words. in the wiki articles, i want to make a narrative of sorts that's compelling from the sources i collect.

yea but normal copyright doesn't apply to wikipedia because its content is CC (under creative commons licence). i can read all your entries aloud for a book on tape series or podcast if i want.

there are even digital publishers on amazon that do nothing but sell fake books that are just print outs / downloads from wikipedia. example:

https://www.amazon.com/Focus-Metallica-Osbourne-Paramore-Blink-182-ebook/dp/B0788QWYVS/ref=sr_1_73?keywords=blink-182&qid=1566430303&s=books&sr=1-73

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, daveyjones said:

yea but normal copyright doesn't apply to wikipedia because its content is CC (under creative commons licence). i can read all your entries aloud for a book on tape series or podcast if i want.

there are even digital publishers on amazon that do nothing but sell fake books that are just print outs / downloads from wikipedia. example:

https://www.amazon.com/Focus-Metallica-Osbourne-Paramore-Blink-182-ebook/dp/B0788QWYVS/ref=sr_1_73?keywords=blink-182&qid=1566430303&s=books&sr=1-73

i know. that’s why i said it’s a moot point lol. i just felt justified in my frustration and wanted to share

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...