Talk:Amanda Palmer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Overwikification

Hi guys -- I had never heard of Ms Palmer until I stumbled on her page here in Wikipedia. A very interesting person, no question about it, and very original! I made very few changes since I don't know much about her, but I did do a little reorg, moved the References section to the end, etc. I also removed a number of non-essential wikilinks per the wiki style guide recommendations (for example, every date doesn't need to be linked). Only items whose content would enhance the reader's understanding of the current article should be linked (what the style guide recommendations refers to as "major connections...and...technical terms"), and of those only the first occurrence (or, if the article is REALLY long, maybe the first occurrence in a section) should be linked. (See Wikipedia Manual of style and style guide recommendations.) I think it actually reads better now -- less links means less distractions to the reader :) Bookgrrl 18:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

disambiguation: the reporter Amanda Palmer; http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8FEAAFBE-72CF-4119-BE38-43DC6000105E.htm

disambiguation is needed when another article of the same name is found notable and added to Wikipedia. Lentower 10:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dresden Dolls

I don't think that the Amanda Palmer lemma needs a Dresden Dolls chapter, while the Dresden Dolls got their own lemma. From my point of view, it's redundant and I would vote for replacing it. It's enough to mention that she's the singer/songwriter/pianist... of The Dresden Dolls and everyone who's interested may click to the other lemma.

If you think it's worth keeping nevertheless, then at least the solo stuff "...most stylish woman in Boston...", "...has begun recording for a new solo album..." etc. doesn't belong in such a chapter. Oh and "new solo album" implies that there is an old one already (besides her early demos).

Agreements? Other opinions? Greetings, Konsumkind 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed earlier in the week that the article needs refactoring into more logical sections. Some of the stuff you mentioned could be moved into Awards and Honors along with other awards. Other sections and sub-sections could help. The DD Companion definitely belongs here as she is sole author of it. Given those changes, the few sentences on The Dresden Dolls should remain. It's adequate background, and saves the reader from clicking through to another article. BTW, The DD Companion definitely is notable and deserves it's own articles - what's needed is WP qualified sources to back up it's notability. Lentower 03:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Len! Thx for replying. Yeah, I agree, the companion should be noted, 'cause it contains biography and - like you mentioned - she wrote it. Just wasn't sure about things like the true colors tour or the mentioning in the New York Times. But that's only my opinion. Konsumkind 22:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yo, KK! Most welcome. I plan to continue working on this article a little each week. I know of several solid days of work I could do. The TC tour is only significant 'cause of her first NT Times review and RCMH debut - both speak to notability. Lentower 23:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The ReBellyon

Would this deserve a mention? The Guardian has run a piece about it, and the controversy seems to be getting more & more attention. Amanda's label told her she looked too fat for her music video, and fans begun to take pictures of their own bellies with messages on them; sending them into Roadrunner Records. Here's the link to The Guardian's piece. I think the controversy is worth a mention at least, because it is growing. It started out very small about a week ago, and now it's grown to this. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/dec/03/dresden-dolls-roadrunner . There is even http://www.TheRebellyon.com . As you can tell, 'The Rebellyon' is the chosen name for this "movement". 71.59.189.46 (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pitchfork Magazine has recently run an article about this as well. I feel it is notable enough to deserve a mention, so I will at least try. Feel free to fix up what I say. http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/147869-dresden-dolls-palmer-tangles-with-label-over-tummy 71.59.189.46 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone expand on this? I created the piece, but it's very crappy. I rushed it, and there are so many other pieces of information I am missing. I just wanted to create it. Blindeffigy (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's quite a fun story. I've given it a slight copyedit. I guess some of the Guardian comments could be incorporated. Cheers, Jayen466 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Evelyn Evelyn

Should Amanda's new project, Evelyn Evelyn be mentioned on this page? Shivers _talk 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you can find appropriate citations. Perhaps just as a line entry under solo collaborations. Lentower (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Most noted for?

Is the Dresden Dolls really at this point the only notable accomplishment worth mentioning in the intro? I think her solo career and pioneering in the New Music Industry have reached that status, but I'll wait for other opinions to add that. Linguistixuck (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Find wikipedia grade sources that say amanda is notable for either reason, than change the intro. As WP editors, we don't judge notability, we find reliable WP grade sources that show notability. Lentower (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Vocal Training?

Does anyone know if she's had any vocal training? If so, please add it to her biography. Biographies of singers/musical artists should contain that sort of information as it is relevant to understanding why she sings the way she does. If she is trained a certain way, we can better understand her decision for singing another way in some of her songs. --Ttrancommenter (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

she has blogged about having had vocal training, and seeing her coach of the moment.
someone else can dig the <ref></ref>S out. Lentower (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

here http://dresdendollsdiary.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html would somebody else mind adding it to the article? Melinoe (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

i believe she has blogged about this @ least three times. it be good to have all the <ref>s. Lentower (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Change of Year Active

It used to say 1990 something.. But she started her first demo album in '89, as in making songs for it. The name of her demo album is "Songs from 1989..." so, wouldn't that be more accurate? Blindeffigy (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Palmer disambiguation page

With there only being two articles named Amanda Palmer, I do not see the justification in creating a disambiguation page; especially not when one of the two is clearly more notable than the other. Sirrontail (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

That's just how I see it too. A disambiguation link on top of this article should be more suitable. -- Lacrimus (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the creation of the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Wait a day and undo it, if there aren't good counter arguments posted. Lentower (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it in an hour before I go to bed, unless there are any immediate objections. Sirrontail (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not complete

If the new disambiguation page isn't undone, the editors who created it should finish cleaning up the links. see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Amanda_Palmer
almost all of which are to the (artist). Lentower (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Rape and Abortion

I think mentioning her abortion and rape isn't particularly notable, and it seems intrusive and very personal. We really don't need to put everything she writes in her blog on here. We may as well chronicle her menstrual cycle if we're going to do that. I'm taking it down if I don't get any argument. 65.175.147.98 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Palmer's staff are asking on twitter for help "improving" their articles here: [1]. If that means correcting inaccuracies and supplying more reliable sourcing, it's a good thing; if it means spinning things in Palmer's favor, it's not so good. In any case we should probably be on the alert for changes to this and related articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oasis controversy

The text "Amanda's semi-autobiographical lyrics tell a story of rape and abortion as told from the perspective of a teenager, who gets through the traumatic experience thanks to her preoccupation with the Brit-pop band Oasis. The subject matter of the song, and the up-beat way it was portrayed in the video, proved to be too much for broadcasters to handle." is plagiarized directly from the site used as a citation for "semi-autobiographical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qrohlf (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. Thanks for catching this. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Questioning source

The bit about Amanda being seduced by her piano teacher- where does that info come from? Is it a verifiable and credible source? If not it should probably be removed from the article. --Dino213aa 23:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's from her bio on the Dresden dolsl website Lyo 00:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

so add the citation Lentower (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

-Does it really need to state the fact that she started playing in a band without being able to read music considering the millions of musicians who can't read the dots.

I'm not even sure weather "Despite the fact that Palmer never learned to read music..." is true... and even less sure that it's relevant - I'm not gonna edit the page b'cus I'm a complete No0b BUT when I saw Amanda recently at a gig in London (ICA 21st Aug '08) she did a cover (I forget what) and stated that since she couldn't find the song anywhere on the internet [in order to learn it by ear] she contacted the artist and got him to send her the sheet music.. now I'm not trying to do a Jessica Fletcher impression.. but why would she ask for the sheet music if she cant read it? Lhynnan (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to just comment on the line:

"Despite the fact that Palmer never learned to read music (though she briefly took lessons at two different times), she started a solo effort, named "Amanda Palmer and the Void"."

but since it's already been discussed I'm just going to delete it. If somebody wants to revert it fine, but reword it so it doesn't sound like it was written by a fifth grader, offer justification for why not reading sheet music is relevant to whether one has a solo career, and put it somewhere where it belongs (not where it currently is). Sorry to be the douche but it just needs to be deleted.

Timothyjwood (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

she has friends who can read sheet music Lentower (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

-does anyone know anything about her weird eyebrows? Are they tattoos?

they're eyeliner Lyo 02:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

She draws them on every time. See the "Girl Anachronism" music video if you'd like to see her do this. In the video, she actually signs her autograph as an eyebrow at one point.

so add the citation Lentower (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Born a Male

There seems to be a very small following that is under the impression that Amanda Palmer was once a man; here's a site that mentions it [2]. The comment on that page reads...

Anonymous said... Are you, or have you ever been, a man? I mean, there seems to be a lot of hints in your songs. "It's not the way I'm meant to be, it's just the way the operation made me?" And I mean, the titles! "Sex Changes?" "Half Jack?" (Like half a man?) Also! Your name is Amanda! Like, "A man, duh!" Please clarify this

While I don't believe this to be true, does this warrant enough sources to be mentioned in the article? Eedo Bee 05:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That source does not qualify for use here. It's an anonymous quote from a blog, which is itself not usable. Also, please remember that according to WP:BLP, any material inserted that could be seen as controversial has to be well-sourced or removed immediately. Jeffpw 08:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I checked. Thanks =) Eedo Bee 11:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

on her myspace(www.myspace.com/whokilledamandapalmer)there pictures of her as a litle girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.83.13 (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to even have this in the discussion. Having a sex change mentioned in a song (and textually the expression "sex changes" is used in two ways in that song, never mind matters of subtext) no more makes Palmer an M2F TG than frequently writing about murders makes Agatha Christie a serial killer. Or for that matter, we must assume that Palmer now regularly visits the magical realm of "London Below" that her fiancé wrote about. "Half-Jack" seems to more explicitly refer to how someone responds to differences between their parents. Finally, the fact that her given first-name is a name meaning "lovable" that has been given to girls since the early 13th Century and never been given to boys, should surely indicate that she was born female, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.81.124 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is like Blog Heaven

This is a biographical article about a talented woman who is a writer, artist, and musician, just to name a few! The inttroduction is really one of two spots where you may expect to find the closest thing to acceptable POV (sort of); by finding articles that support and/or appreciate the artist's various abilities. Flattering clips from various newspapers and magazines are used best in the intro. The last thing you want to see are comments from Palmer's blog, with her intended future work clouding out her acheivements. Lead paragraphs. are of critical importance. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). This article does not represent a biographer's view of the subject. It also causes problems when some Wikipedian editors leave the article, and nobody knows what "right now" means or how long it was. Finally, involving all these professors etc. who are not in the Wikipedia at all in the lead is truly inappropriate. Unless someone can explain the plans they have for leaving a paragraph full of red links on the article (and not in a sandbox) I think it would be wise to be bold, and remove the second part of the intro with a decent re-write. How do others here feel? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 08:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Useful cite creation tool

Give a URL to http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=url&id=&vertical=1&extended=1&add_param_space=1&add_ref_tag=1&dont_strip_trailing_period=1&full_journal_title=1&link_journal=1&add_text_url=1&add_accessdate=1 - and it will generate a lot of a <ref>{{cite www template, with the empty arguments ready to fill in. select, Ctl-a, Ctl-c, change windows/tabs, select, Ctl-v: VIOLA!!! Lentower (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a Viola: Does Amanda play that, too, as well as the keyboard, ukelele, drums, etc? (Oh, and thanks for the link to the tool.) —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Correct. i don't know how to spell in French.  ; - } most Welcome for the tool. Lentower (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Turns out someone named Amanda Palmer did play viola in her senior recital. But given that it was in South Carolina, it seems unlikely to be the same Amanda Palmer. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Link Rot gone

I just got the last bare URL cite expanded, and removed this box {{Cleanup-link rot|date=June 2010}}

from the article. Please use the citation generation tool mentioned above to prevent this in the future: http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=url&id=&vertical=1&extended=1&add_param_space=1&add_ref_tag=1&dont_strip_trailing_period=1&full_journal_title=1&link_journal=1&add_text_url=1&add_accessdate=1

thanx Lentower (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Studio Album?

Goes Down Under is listed as a studio album. Maybe I'm a little bit dumb, but ain't studio albums supposed to be recorded in a studio opposed to being recorded mostly live? -- 217.85.53.104 (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Solo section

I believe that the Dresden Dolls did a cover version of I Love Rock 'N Roll, and not just Amanda by herself. I have the version where it's both of them, and I am going to remove that from the list unless there is a version of just herself.

Also, Kaledrina is both of them. Oreo

amanda originally did kaledrina before brian was ever in the picture. she has recently performed it solo also. it's solo material that he has played on.

Palmer has increasing used the ukulele in her career -> great writing skills —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.25.60 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wedding status

There's been some discussion on whether Palmer actually married Neil Gaiman. The answer depends on your opinion of what marriage is, it seems: she's married, but hasn't done the paperwork (I don't know how the specifics work in the US): http://twitter.com/amandapalmer/status/2481702320476160 —me_and 03:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to note it here, she and Neil Gaiman got legally married in January 2011. Lentower (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

LOFNOTC vs Kickstarter

Amanda's success with at least two Kickstarter campaigns is much more encyclopedic than LOFNOTC. It also has many reliable sources. It be better for this article and Wikipedia's readers to put energy into adding the Kickstarter campaigns. Lentower (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

LOFNOTC

This LOFNOTC sub-section is not encyclopedic. It's a tiny, almost insignificant part of Amanda's story. We do not include every tiny fact about a subject in an article, but the significant ones. Finding Wikipedia quality secondary and tertiary sources to support text about her wider use of the Internet, often ground-breaking use, is what this article needs. E.g the Kickstarter campaigns.

Using the Open Salon source to support text about how she uses the Internet would be a good add. Especially, if other sources are added that give the big picture.

This sub-section, and much of this article use too many primary sources. They are not suppose to be the only or main citation for a section of text, but to be used sparsely for support. Lentower (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Kickstarter & synergy with Neil Gaiman

Amanda & her husband, Neil Gaiman have had a large effect on each other's careers, including a history of joint performances. If it was written to Wikipedia standards, and to the extent it could be supported by Wikipedia quality sources, this would be a fascinating and encyclopedic addition to both their articles (and others who were involved, e.g. Kyle Cassidy).

Instead there is the barest mention of their courtship and marriage.

Their joint Kickstarter campaign in 2011 would be a place to start, and has Wikipedia quality sources available.

Ditto, Amanda's May 2012 Kickstarter campaign for her new album. Neil had minor roles there, but those adds would be mostly to this article.

I'm not aware of Amanda or Neil having any other Kickstarter campaigns, but this should be checked. Lentower (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken Source

Source 75:

^ Mike Errico (December 2006). "Hottest Women of...Rock!". Blender.com. Retrieved December 8, 2007. "Amanda Palmer – The pianist and singer of Brechtian Boston duo Dresden Dolls mashes up punk rock

Links to a Page Not Found page on Blender. Not experienced enough to resolve this myself, but I thought I'd point it out. 69.208.89.23 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Musical knowledge

I think this sentence is a bit weird: "Despite the fact that Palmer never learned to read music (though she briefly took lessons at two different times), she formed a band called "Amanda Palmer and the Void". I would venture that many bands have members (especially singers) who can't read music- i don't see that it's particularly relevant. Thoughts? 79.68.124.177 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rare for musicians and lyricists/composers to have the level and kind of success that Amanda has had, without being able to read music. The sentence could be broken in half, and reworded. Something like ``Palmer never learned to read music (though she briefly took lessons at two different times). She formed a band called "Amanda Palmer and the Void". Lentower (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Is is that rare? Musicians way more commercially successful than Amanda can't. Eddie Van Halen, Lennon/McCartney, Brian Wilson can't. Not to mention if you get into blues greats who can't hardly read English or punk/metal. Satanico (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You mention four musicians who cann't read music out of thousands (tens (hundreds?) of thousands?) professional musicians who can read music. That still makes it rare. The fact that some musicians can't read English may beinteresting, but not relevant to whether this sentence about Ms Palmer not reading music belongs in the article. Lentower (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is about she can't read music yet she formed a band. It's not saying she is a great composer like Beethoven or Gershwin and can't read music. You can pick piles of bands on the pop charts that write their songs but can't read music, I just mentioned a few super successful songwriters who wrote pop music standards. I could fill this page with bands more successful than Palmer that don't read music and their wiki says nothing of it. Satanico (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant term here is rock. Of course, most professional musicians can read, but most professional musicians are not rock musicians, and quite a few professional rock musicians cannot. I would say it's surprising that Palmer couldn't read given her style of piano playing and given that she obviously has a fair amount of technique on her instrument--that is, technique of a particular kind. TheScotch (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"a poem for dzhokhar"

So...I just saw a Bill O'Reilly play a clip of her reciting a "poem" about the Boston bombing, calling her "a far-left loon", etc.

Guessing the "Controversy" section gets a new bullet?

184.17.171.22 (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

If you can find secondary and tertiary WP:NPOV, WP:RS sources for the footnotes, and you feel it's of encyclopedic significance, go for it. Lentower (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's of encyclopedic significance--this has made Palmer known to lots of people who hadn't heard of her before. I added an item "A Poem for Dzhokhar" under "Controversies", with a reference to news coverage, as well as links both to the original poem and her commentary on it two days later (with a pull-quote from the commentary). -- Narsil (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted an earlier addition of this material that relied solely on a Fox news piece as being not from a neutral source. Your addition, I feel, is more accurate, but it has a different problem (one that has been endemic in this article): it relies far too much on primary sources (Palmer's own writings). We really need to be using secondary sources here, not primary ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, primary sources are okay for some uses, including (as in this case) to cite a person's own opinion (here, it's to quote Palmer's explanation of the poem and comment on the controversy)--I thought this was consistent with WP:ABOUTSELF. For coverage of the controversy itself, I found several news sources, but most of them were blogs--while many were official newspaper/magazine blogs, I figured (as per WP:NEWSBLOG) that it was best to go with an article that wasn't described as a blog post. I don't think we need more than this, though, to establish (a) that she wrote the poem, (b) that it got a lot of attention, and (c) that it was controversial--I don't think that's in dispute at this point? Narsil (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This whole article has a pattern of claims about Amanda doing something, cited to her blog. We should be citing those claims to secondary sources. Ideally, her blog should not be used as a source at all. If her blog is the best available source for some fact, then that fact probably is not sufficiently significant to be included in our article. I'm not worried about the accuracy of the new material, but about its significance. Her blog does nothing to establish that. And if we do have the secondary sources that establish significance, what do we need the blog sources for? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Over-tagging

For some reason, there were three "citation needed" tags on the following two sentences:

She has many friends who are fellow musicians, and frequently performs alongside them, either accompanying them in their performances, or featuring them in her live shows. These performers include: Jason Webley, Kim Boekbinder, The Jane Austen Argument, Reggie Watts, Tim Minchin, Mikelangelo, Meow Meow and Neil Gaiman.[citation needed]

First, I don't understand what's so controversial about the fact that Palmer has many musician friends. Second, and most importantly, there is certainly no need for three CN tags on that short passage. I removed them once, and someone readded them. Please do not readd them again, without explaining in detail why such an uncontroversial passage needs 3 CN tags, when once citation at the end would be plenty. LHM 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing tags is not appropriate, unless you replace them with at least one citation. I did agree with you that three could be reduced to two. I just added a Template:OR on the first one. Text in Wikipedia articles need citations that meets Wikipedia policies. Not just an editor's thoughts on the subject. The list of names is also arbitrary, as well as being WP:OR - reliable sources should be cited that include the names on the list. Lentower (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing SUPERFLUOUS tags is completely appropriate. One tag, at the end of that graf, is plenty, particularly given than the two-sentence passage isn't even controversial in the least. Why are you insisting on keeping multiple tags, cluttering the article unnecessarily? LHM 22:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

To encourage the adding of the needed citations. The fact a musician has musician friends is not encyclopedic by itself. Nothing in these sentences indicate anything encyclopedic. Lentower (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Having musician friends is not encyclopedic. Being part of a circle of people who frequently perform together is. I agree that this needs citation but I also agree with Lithistman that one tag is sufficient to remind us of this need. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why no mention of Gaiman as husband?

Why is there no overt mention of Neil Gaiman in the opening paragraph? Many Wikipedia articles I've seen have a line like "She is married to so-and-so" right in the top section.

I realize there's a superscript which mentions Gaiman in passing, but 1) the point of this note isn't to identify Palmer's spouse, it's to explain one of her surnames; and 2) to a reader who isn't reading every footnote along the way, it would be easy to miss this information. It seems to me the kind of information one would want prominently visible in the opening lines of the article, because it involves another famous person. Chillowack (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should be about the things that she is famous for. I think she would think of the notion that she should be famous for being someone's wife as quite offensive, and anyway WP:NOTINHERITED means that in most cases we don't consider people famous for being married to other people here. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this clarification, David.Chillowack (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

David Eppstein is right here. Personal data is not in the introduction, unless it's quite central to the bio article (it rarely is). Those other articles should be edited to fit WP's style.

Her marriage is also discussed at length in the Personal Life section. Sadly, the spouse parameter isn't recognized by the Infobox in use.

Chillowack might want to read the guidelines and essays on article structure, biographies, & writing introductions. Lentower (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

I have removed, for the second time, the quote where Palmer describes her preferred body type. This kind of remark is not included in other biographical articles, and frankly I suspect it's only being included here to make the article "sexier". The quote itself is not especially interesting or noteworthy and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The interview it appears in is already linked so those wishing to know more about Palmer's sex life can get to it easily. CKarnstein (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't revert you again, but I'm not 100% sure you're right. For different people, different facts might be significant. For a politician or scientist, adding that information would be vandalism. But given who Amanda is, one might reasonably expect intrusive personal information in an encyclopedia entry on her. Still, I see your point and won't press the issue. Arxack (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Parenthetically, I'm surprised she made a statement about it. It's not going to win any fans. Her life is about music -- she's not notable for her sex habits -- unlike Mae West who slept with the whole USC football team, and who scandalized America with her behavior. Also, we would have to consider that, if body type preference was important, we'd want to know if Palmer had always felt that way. And keep the article up-to-date when she changed preference. Piano non troppo (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Piano non troppo has clearly not followed Ms Palmer's career. Comments like this, and her openness and candor about her life has won her many fans. Her career is also much more about performance than just music. Lentower (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has at some point been changed from "She identifies as bisexual" to "She has identified as bisexual,", but it cites the same source. Has she stated that this has changed over the year, or is it something someone has changed because she's marred to a man? Feels a bit unjust to make assuptions. --84.215.48.86 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why high school/college add was reverted - how to edit

I have added a section to the Personal section that is extracted from an October 2013 blog post, so please feel free to revert or revise as you all see fit. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. See edit summary. Before you edit more Wikipedia biographies, I suggest you also read and think about WP:PSTS, WP:BIOG, WP:BLP, and related pages. Lentower (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear and thorough explanation for the latest reversion. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about adding her support of the Dallas young women's group?--Soulparadox (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Same issues. I strongly suggest you go read the Wikipedia references I mention a few paragraphs back.

If you want to work on improving this biography, a careful read of this Talk page will show you a few of the problems it has. Note that a Wikipedia quality, well-referenced paragraph is several hours to several days writing. Lentower (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read those policies before, but the reason I ask is that this article seems to have people who are passionately attached to it, so I just wanted to make sure, as I have not encountered this degree of attachment before. I understand that you are using Wikipedia policy to reinforce your points, but instead of being specific, you are just referring generally to the policies—I am well aware of these policies and have edited intensively for a significant period of time. For example, the information I am proposing describe aspects of the subject's life that are important to an encyclopedic understanding of her for someone seeking to comprehensively know who Palmer is: She was ostracized at school and identifies with being an "outsider", she is active in issues related to women and music, and she contributed to a public issue of significance/prominence that is related to women and music. I am not attached to this page, so I am happy to leave it here, as I am interested in editing Wikipedia broadly. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

See #Article's Focus. I split off a general issue, from the Personal Life discussion. Lentower (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(In my experience on Wikipedia, both editing and on the policy/administrative side) most editors can understand the specifics from the {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. Most editors don't answer queries about an article change after consensus has been reached. But I'll do a little more mentoring here. In the hope it will help you become an even better Wikipedian. (My word usage is Wikipedian, not common English.)

• From the Wikipedian perspective, you edit here was also original research, which is another reason for reversion.
• To be of Wikipedian importance, secondary and/or tertiary reliable sources have to be found, and the text added to the article be written from, supported by, and be verifiable from those sources, and written from a neutral point of view. The sources should be the highest quality that can be found. These sources should be numerous enough to show the importance. Since this subject is one that raises WP:BLP concerns, these sources should confirm there are no WP:BLP concerns. If they don't, one can add just enough primary sources (one is best), using the |quote="" parameter in the {{cite XXX ...}} template to include just enough from the primary source for confirmation. Comment it something like this <ref><!-- shows no [[WP:BLP]] concern -->{{cite XXX ...!quote="..." ...}}</ref>
• Quality is more important than quantity on Wikipedia. Both in adding sources and text. Any add should not raise problems at a WP:GA review.
• The text written should be short, concise, well-written, and an overview of the information the sources provide. Here is a hypothetical try at the edit you attempted. Hypothetical, because I'm not writing from any sources. Her music has been heavily influenced by her isolation in high school and college. (Boldface just from emphasis in this example). The sources would have to verify:
  • What the isolation was, and that it did influence her music.
  • That the isolation was heavy, as you can only include biased language supported by the non-primary sources.
  • That it happened in High School.
  • That it happened in College.
• Reading WP:GA and WP:FA articles is a good way to see what Wikipedian quality writing is. Section 1.4 of WP:Good_articles/Art_and_architecture and section 1.1 of WP:Featured_articles have such bios of artists.

-- Lentower (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Article's Focus

My feeling, as I have probably stated here already, is that the controversies section still has too much focus on "Amanda made a blog post this week about [topic du jour]". Per WP:RECENT, we should focus on stuff that's still going to be seen as a significant part of her life years from now. Her music, yes. The fact that she is active on the internet, also yes. Her general sex-positive activism, with some examples (the daily mail incident, the Lady Gaga song, the fact that her song Berlin refers to her early days as a stripper), yes. Blowing up these examples into "controversies" each with their own paragraph, no. Basically, step back and look at the big picture. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Kind of agree. I'll comment further later. Lentower (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Influences: early & later (please add)

Many readers are interested in a person's influences. Only a few of Ms. Palmer's are mentioned. Please add others. (Unfortunately, the Infobox in use does not have a parameter for this.) — Lentower (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

AFP Or just a fake nickname

I see afp used in conjunction a lot especially on youtube videos. It seems to possibly have to do with the f word, but I find it odd that it would have to do with this singer and added to her middle initial. Anybody have any info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.31.254 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? She refers to herself as "Amanda Fucking Palmer" frequently, on her blog [3], her twitter [4], and her official web site's html title and image banner [5]. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Inserted in lede. Please note that this not a joke, nor vandalism; she bills herself "Amanda Fucking Palmer". JN466 22:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

' I strongly believe that Amanda Fucking Palmer is not appropriate to place in the information box or the introduction. (I also feel that the second half of the intro should be rewritten, so, one at a time. AFP may be her own pet name for herself, however, that area of the infobox is used for names given to the aubject of this encyclopedia. Even if Palmer herslf bills herself as such, aliases and nicknames that are appropriate would be terms like "The Godfather of Soul", (James Brown), "The Boss" (Bruce Springsteen. But I bet you didn't need to read who I was referring to, right? So when you think of Amanda Palmer, is "Amanda Fucking Palmer" the first thought you would associate with her if you did not work on this article? It might be a great DYK? note, but surely belongs somewhere lower in the text.

I don't see a reason for this in your comment other than your feelings of inappropriateness. See WP:NOTCENSORED. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This nickname is unacceptable as it is not in common usage, has nothing to do with censorship. Therefore, it should be redacted as the entire article redirect as Amanda "Fucking" Palmer. It is also worth noting that if she is fucking Palmer, it is an incest reference which is illegal. 62.253.5.4 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Amanda 'fucking' palmer

I see that this information has been re-added. However, all the sources are utterly primary:

1. banner on own website
2. her own twitter
3. poster of an own concert

and one independent source

1. The Battered Suitcase Summer 2009 (seems an interview, is it based on how Amanda Palmer is addressing herself, or is it independent).

That is then used to support "sometimes known as Amanda Fucking Palmer", and to support that it is a recognised alias ("also known as" in infobox) - one independent mention seems a bit thin for that. If she is really 'known' for that alias, there must be more, significantly independent sourcing for that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just search for the phrase, you'll find plenty. How many more sources does it need? And keep in mind WP:NOTCENSORED. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

For a mere mention of a "performance" name these sources are sufficient in my opinion (especially the poster). It may seem a wee bit self-serving, but there is enough impact even if mainly from her plugging the idea in interviews. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves is sufficiently clear and gives room for this. Fæ (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, we are talking WP:BLP here, information needs independent sources. And the page is talking about 'also known as', 'sometimes known as' - that plainly means, that people are addressing Amanda like that, not that Amanda is addressing herself like that, or would like to be addressed like that. The book-source is an interview, which may then also be 'plugged'.

In other words, if the sentences are 'also known as' and 'sometimes known as', that needs sources where other people call her like that, not sources written/managed by herself. For that reason, I find the SPS very thin, and I also find that one independent source very thin. Sure, you can say 'search for it' (eh, your google.com search found, eh, one (dependent) source ..), but that is not the point, because this is a WP:BLP, the sources need to be here, and need to back it up. It is not that I want to censor Wikipedia (I'd be the last in line), if we are going to say it like this, it needs independent sources. The SPSs do show that she herself does not have a problem with it, but for all I now see, it may be some anti-fan who said somewhere on a blog 'I hate that music that that Amanda Fucking Palmer is producing' .. and Amanda has picked it up as 'oh, I'd like to be known like that'. And such a blogpost is not making her 'also known as' or 'sometimes known as', and the self-proclaimed 'I address myself as Amanda Fucking Palmer' does not make here 'also known as' or 'sometimes known as' - that may happen in the future, but we are not a crystal ball.... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You didn't look very carefully at the search I linked, did you? It wasn't a Google web search, it was a Google news search. As far as I can tell, all of the dozen hits it found were reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the trust - I only see one source - maybe something local? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My results after clicking this:

Your search - "amanda fucking palmer" - did not match any news results.

Search Results

news « amandapalmer.net

amandapalmer.net/ - Cached

LIVE: AFP and The Grand Theft Orchestra at Northcote Social Club! AFP & GTO at ... AFP and her new band, The Grand Theft Orchestra, are doing an exclusive ...

All results for "amanda fucking palmer" »

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 1 already displayed.

If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

Stay up to date on these results:

Create an email alert for "amanda fucking palmer"

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Actually .. no sources .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Stripping the search to https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&as_epq=amanda%20fucking%20palmer gives http://hangout.altsounds.com/news/143458-amanda-palmer-releases-polly.html and http://www.tonedeaf.com.au/reviews/shows/134453/mikelangelo-and-the-tin-star.htm . That is a bit more.

However, you still have not addressed that the current phrasing is not independently sourced, while 'also known as' implies firmly that independent people do address her like that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird. Here is what I get from the search:

1. [6]. Highly reliable, quotes her as calling herself that.
2. [7]. An online music magazine, most likely reliable, but only refers to the title of a blog post by Palmer that happens to use the phrase.
3. [8] [9]. A Czech newspaper, I think. Includes a mention that she toured under this name.
4. [10] I'm not sure what this is, exactly, but it's in Croatian and it quotes her signature from a post she made, using this name.
5. [11]. An italian music magazine? Google translate did not give me a clear idea what it says.
6. [12]. A French music magazine interviews Palmer, and uses "Amanda Fucking Palmer" as the title of the interview.
7. [13]. Another French music magazine says in the first sentence that she's also known as "Amanda Fucking Palmer".
8. [14]. Yet another French music magazine, but this one is (like the prefixmag one) only referring to her blog post that had the name in its title.
9. [15]. An Australian music magazine reviews a show in which Palmer was performing and quotes one of the other performers as having called her that.
10. [16]. A music magazine reviews a show of Palmer and Gaiman, and in its first sentence calls her Amanda "Fucking" Palmer (with the scare quotes).
11. [17]. Yet another music magazine reports on some of Palmer's plans, refers to her as Amanda Fucking Palmer, but clarifies that it's her phrase and not the magazine's.
12. [18]. In a music magazine review of one of her albums, it says she calls herself...

Anyway, I disagree that "also known as" requires us to document any sort of widespread usage of the name. If she calls herself that, posts online under that name, tours under that name, etc., then she is also known as that name. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, some of these are pretty much suitable references which make it true. I see no problem in adding some of these ... it certainly makes the statement stronger. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

AFP

She also refers to herself as AFP. Maybe that should be added in her AKA. Chavando (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Find a few secondary sources that meet WP:RS and add the citations. Lentower (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

people give themselves all kind of names - why the need for a independent source? - nicknames are not verifiable facts ... they are in circulation because they are being used - try WP:Common Sense 基 (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

of course there are plenty sources ... if you just look for it - for examples this one from TED or on refinery29.com --基 (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case I'd think of it more as a stage name than a nickname. And in other cases we don't object to musicians making up their own stage names, so why here? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Bold revert

I just removed "Amanda Fucking Palmer" from the infobox because there were no reliable sources to back up the nickname, even the discussion above regarding that nickname shows no reliable sources, also the links used in the infobox consist of 2 blogs (tumblr and twitter), a book reference which leads to an arts magazine that says nothing about Amanda Palmer at all, and a third one which appears to be a media site, but which also may fail RS. I read the discussion about her nickname, and even though there are references, again, none appear to be reliable. Per BLP a reliable source has to confirm that nickname. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 12:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A blog and twitter feed operated by Amanda Palmer is a reliable source about Amanda Palmer's stage name. An MTV interview with Amanda Palmer is a reliable source. I have no opinion on the book reference, but when you've got 3 reliable sources, the possible lack of a 4th isn't important. Also, this was discussed by people above; David Eppstein gives several more reliable sources. Also, on her website she refers to herself as AFP. Also, several experienced knowledgeable admins at the ANI thread you evidently saw that brought you here reverted an IP who was removing this. Also, you didn't remove it from the text of the article, but you removed all the sources, so you introduced a BLP violation if you want to get technical about it. Restored, this is clearly not a BLP violation. If you want to remove it as an editorial decision, get consensus for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how you concluded there were no reliable sources as the existing sources involved the subject herself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur. I also point out that we've pretty clearly had a consensus among the editors that this alias is sufficiently notable and cited to warrant keeping in the article, as evidenced by the consistent restorations when people try to remove it. At the very least, if someone wants to argues against removing it, they should bring it here for discussion before acting. DaveSeidel (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam actually, neither twitter nor tumbler are reliable sources as anyone can set up a twitter or tumbler feed and claim they're someone they're not, also, the google book reference goes to an empty page and there are no references to amanda palmer there either, the media page, I actually can't view, but without any reliable sources, including it is a BLP violation. However, per our agreement, I will not remove the nickname again. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: However both the twitter and tumblr are linked to on her official site. [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that these sources are reliable. Also the usage meets BLP, as they come from the subject of the article uses the stage name. — Lentower (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How to fix broken link?

can you anybody find an archived version of this broken link?

cit. 62: Amanda Palmer (February 3, 2009). "on Abortion, Rape, Art and Humor.". Retrieved January 12, 2011.

Link http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/75463717/on-abortion-rape-art-and-humor is no longer valid. --Fraktik (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia calls broken links dead links. See WP:Dead link for how to handle them. They are almost never deleted from the text of an article.

I added {{dead link}} for now to the citatiation with the dead link.

It's possbible this dead link is temporary due to web site problems.

It be best to find a non-primary source with a similar quote. Wikipedia does not like WP:primary sources in it's articles.

To try to find the link, use the string "on-abortion-rape-art-and-humor" to search for the blog on http://blog.amandapalmer.net/. Then search for the quote (it appears this quote might be from the comments section of the blog which is actually on another website, disqus). If there are a lot of comments, you have to go to the end of the blog page, and keep loading more comments until you have them all, or find the quote. You can then get the link of the comment, the quote is in (click the little icon to the upper right of the comment for the permalink to the comment). Alternatively, you can just search for the whole quote on the web search site of your choice. Note it's possible that the blog or comment was deleted, perhaps by a computer glitch.

To try and find an archive of the kink. you can search for the link, blog, and/or quote, at the web archiving sites mentioned at WP:Dead link#Web_archive_services, Web_archiving, and List of Web archiving initiatives.

Once you find it, please archive it as described at WP:Dead link#Web_archive_services. — Lentower (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed the dead link. Archived the fixed link. Quote was in the actual blog, not a comment on Disqus. — Lentower (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Amanda Palmer. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209073144/http://www.therebellyon.com:80/The_Rebellyon/Home.html to http://www.therebellyon.com/The_Rebellyon/Home.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081205013923/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com:80/article/news/147869-dresden-dolls-palmer-tangles-with-label-over-tummy to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/news/147869-dresden-dolls-palmer-tangles-with-label-over-tummy

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I had removed the controversy section. It was poorly sourced, most were primary sources. And the usage of the word "controversy" was largely overused, none of it was notable due to lack of Reliable Secondary Sources. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amanda Palmer. 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/20110723013110/http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/501070649/free-at-last-free-at-last-dear-roadrunner-records to http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/501070649/free-at-last-free-at-last-dear-roadrunner-records
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101235343/http://www.247gay.com/article.cfm?section=68&id=9942 to http://www.247gay.com/article.cfm?section=68&id=9942
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210001725/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=2295 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?ID=2295&src=blender_ed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216025915/http://www.dresdendolls.com:80/bio/bio_amanda.htm to http://www.dresdendolls.com/bio/bio_amanda.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Songs

this list could go on and on and on. nip it in the bud before too many people add to it? user:wwwiii2

It's a possiblity, but..it isn't too long yet. I think it helps if we have this section, because Amanda doesn't always note that it's a cover song or not. Oreo

there's a whole list of her songs (and whether or not they're covers) on the shadowbox. i don't see why it needs to be transferred over here. just sayin'. wwwiii2

It helps give the proper credit to whoever wrote the song originially. Some covers she does aren't popular songs in the media, so one could easily confuse it's her own song. Oreo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoreox (talk • contribs) 05:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing album?

I was looking through amanda palmer's music on grooveshark, and came across an 18 track album called "Amanda is Busting Out All Over", which doesnt appear to be listed in this article. It includes 2 versions of "Ampersand" which appears on Who Killed Amanda Palmer, The Point Of It All, also on Who Killed..., and a cover of On The Radio by Regina Spektor (incidentally, the article for this song does mention that Amanda has performed this song live), and some songs I don't recognize at first sight. I havent listed to all the songs, but the ones i have listened to are live, so this is probably a live album. I don't have any other sources, as I wouldnt know where to look! (wikipedia is usually where i would get this information). ~~12:45 8/8/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.73.169 (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Amanda Palmer. 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/20071013123457/http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/music/live/documents/02157185.htm to http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/music/live/documents/02157185.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://thedirtybusinessbrigade.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213030648/http://www.spin.com/features/news/2007/04/070425_apalmer to http://www.spin.com/features/news/2007/04/070425_apalmer
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afterellen.com/people/2009/hot100?page=0%2C19
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?ID=2295&src=blender_ed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121227105632/http://music.amandapalmer.net/track/polly to http://music.amandapalmer.net/track/polly
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dresdendolls.com/bio/bio_amanda.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425082802/http://hammer.ucla.edu/watchlisten/watchlisten/show_id/29724/show_type/video?browse=none&category=0&search=Hammer to http://hammer.ucla.edu/watchlisten/watchlisten/show_id/29724/show_type/video?browse=none&category=0&search=Hammer

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)