Talk:Brocket 99

Cult-Like Status

Can anyone verify the claim that Brocket 99 has a cult-like following across North America? In the last 30+ years, I've lived in three different provinces and three different states. I never heard of the tape until after I moved to Lethbridge. Even then, it wasn't until I was here for five years before I first heard about it. -- Kmsiever 03:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a British (not Canadian) citizen currently living in Edmonton, Alberta. I heard about the tape years ago. While I am not convinced it has a cult-like following (it is highly offensive, after all, and 'cult-like' implies love), it is certainly much more widespread than simply Lethbridge. Heck, I've never even been to Lethbridge except to attend a wedding. --Yamla 16:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently a few people have heard of it outside of Lethbridge, but that being said, I know several people across Canada who had never heard of it. There needs to be some mechanism other than anecdotal evidence that we can use to determine the tape's notoriety. I am not sure an obscure documentary counts either. I had not heard of this documentary until someone had mentioned it here. -- Kmsiever 15:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard the tape in Scotland in about 1997. Some of my friends used to recite bits of it all the time. So for better or worse, it's known world-wide --scruss 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Or at least known to a handful of people in Scotland. -- Kmsiever 15:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious, how do you define 'known world-wide', Kmsiever? By any reasonable definition, I think it is fair to say it is known by more than just a few people outside of Lethbridge. --Yamla 16:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

"Involving or extending throughout the entire world; universal" or "so pervasive and all-inclusive as to exist in or affect the whole world" or "spanning or extending throughout the entire world" or "involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope". -- Kmsiever 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As the original author of the "cult-like" phrase, I should mention that the characterization of the tape as "cult-like" was not entirely my doing, rather it was taken from an article in the Globe and Mail from the week I wrote the original version. Outside of what I learned from that article I know very little about the tape, so please take my version with a grain of salt. --PullUpYourSocks 23:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I learned about the tape (and actually listened to part of it) when I lived in Medicine Hat many years ago. I didn't know it originated in Lethbridge and while Medicine Hat isn't too far away my point is that I had heard about it.--Jeff 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's get something straight. All you answers to your questions can be found on Brocket99.net The recording is universal and widespread. It started off as a joke amongst friends(hear interview of Ernie Scar) that was dubbed and dubbed again until it gained a cult like following around English speaking countries in the world. There is even a line of fashion apparrel named after Brocket 99 that people actually buy and wear. Brocket Nichikoko Feb12, 2007 --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.149.227.119 (talk) 2007-02-17

--> Brocket 99 had been distributed in one way or another in North America, South America, Great Britain, parts of Europe and all over the world wide net. No Brocket 99 isn't a prolific as Britney Spears Sex Life but is is well known in the underground circuit. Brocket 99 has been written about in various Canadian Newspapers from the small one as the Lethbridge Herald to the Vancouver and Edmonton Sun. How about the Times?--Professor fo Brocketology June 25th, 2007

Mark Campbell Connection

I'm wondering about the fact that I've heard a rumour that local news correspondent Mark Campbell was involved with the tapes production. Has anyone else heard this rumour?--Jeff 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The Brocket 99 Fan site has an interview with Mark Campbell in which Mark denies having anything to do with the making of Brocket 99. [1] Is this information worthy of an update to the entry? --Jeff 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it Jeff. Until you had brought it up, I had never heard of Mark Campbell having a connection with the tape. If someone had already claimed on the article page that Campbell had a connection, then I think we could make that edit. --Kmsiever 19:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have heard from several different people that Mark Campbell had part in making the tapes. Although he has denied it repeatedly, people still believe he had some part in it....--Tinnc 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

-->Mark Campbell had nothing to do with the recording of the tapes. Listen to his interview available at Brocket99.net as well as Nilesh's Youtueb interview with him.--Professor of Brocketology

References

Please do not remove the call for references, until citations are used where claims are made. --Kmsiever 20:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As Peter Yellowhorn once said to Iris Larrett, "Boo #uckin' Hoo" How can something be referenced if the referecne is then used as copyright infringement. This is a circular nonsensical notion. We have cited sources and references, but you call them copyrigth infringement. Maybe you should listen to the Ernie Scar Interview, The Cowboy SmithX Interview, the Lenny Red-Nuts Interview, and the Charles Kang interview available on Brocket99.net. Also read the various articles that have answered a lot of the questions people have about Brocket 99. The answers are there, you just have to look.

You are approaching this as a research academic paprp, wheras we need to not the interview name, date, at what point in the recording the quote was made and so on. Most of us don't have time to do this, and it is not neccessary at all. Creating a link to the interview, recording, letter, or article should be enough. And no it should not be called copyright infringement.

Let's live in 2007, and not in the ignorant 1990's where people thought Brocket 99 was made by some college or university kids. The Brocketologists of the U of A February 18, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.227.119 (talk • contribs) 18 February 2007

Adding the name of a website in the "edit summary" field does not count as a citation. Please read through WP:CITE to see why we cite on Wikipedia and how to properly cite sources. Please also read WP:NOR regarding why we cite our research, and WP:V to see why verifiability is more important than truth. Wikipedia is about creating well-written, objective articles composed of verifiable information from third-party sources. Information that is biased, copied from other sources without citations or consist of original research is not welcome. Please read through the articles I listed above before editing again. It is imperative editors understand practice and policy on Wikipedia. --Kmsiever 03:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We are asked to cite spources. When we gives cite sources, we are accused of copyright infringement. If we don't cite sources, then we are accused of making things up. Brocket 99.net is a plethora is real information on Brocket 99, and thus must be cited as it contains interviews, articles, and so on which are all part of the Brocket 99 universe.

Brocket 99 is simply not a radio parody from 20 years ago, but is in fact a living entity which has inspired various spinoffs, interviews, articles and so on. Kmsiever wants Brocket 99 to be the original tape and Nilesh Patel's film. Fortunately, the world of Brocket 99 is much larger now and must include the various spinoffs, interviews, websites, characters(both real and fictional) as part of what Brocket 99 is. We have mentioned and cited various sources but now are accused of copyrigtht infringement. How are we supposed to cite information without mentioning site, books, interviews, spinoffs or anything. All of these contributions are relivant to Brocket 99. Mentioning Nilesh Patel's film is copyright infringement so why is that OK but referencing a site or an interview on CD considered a NO NO.

And about citing sources: How can you prove anything? Prove to me Brocket 99 was recorded where you say it was. I don't see and citations for previous Brocket 99 information.

Let's live in 2007 with the information that we have, not the ignorant year of 1992 where people thought Brocket 99 was made by a bunch of bored University students out of Lethbridge or Edmonton. Let's get real and build upon the information of Brocket 99, instead of burying our heads in the sand listening to 40th generation copies of Brocket while giving kudos to Nilesh Patel sipping Branvin in the Bridge Inn. [The Brocketologists of the U of A] Feb 20, 2007

I have no opinion about battles among the fans of Brocket 99, and I doubt that Kmsiever does either. When we ask for citations, it's fine to mention websites, films, books, CDs and so forth: just don't copy information verbatim from them. The article probably needed citations even before the recent additions — the call for citations is coming now because the article has been drawn to the attention of experienced Wikipedians.

That said, it is important that the citations added are from reliable sources. Perhaps brocket99.net is a well-known and reliable source within the world of Brocket 99 fans. We have no way of knowing that, unless you can provide sources independent of brocket99.net which indicate that it's considered reliable. (Has the site been mentioned in newspaper articles about Brocket 99, for example?)

To cite the documentary, you might want to create a footnote section and use the {{cite video}} template. You can also use {{cite web}} to cite brocket99.net or other websites, if their reliablility has been established. If you have questions about how to fulfill Wikipedia's citations requirements, you can ask here, or I can try to help answer questions on my user talk page. Good luck! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

-->References. This is not William Shakespear and this is not Cambridge Hall Great Britain lead by PHD. William in a Wheelchair. If you want your sources, talk to Michale Anthony who owns the Copyright and interviewed many of the main players in the Brocket 99 Universe. MAACP.COM Talk to him there while he upgrades his Brocket99.net site. If this was university, Michael would be the head of the Brocketology Department.--Professor of Brocketology June 25, 2007

-->Obviously Canuckian or Canuck or whatever his name is, is a minion or is in fact Nilesh Patel self advancing his goals for domination over the Brocket 99 universe. Let's live in 2007 and not 1991 where PATEL wishes to keep us--southern alberta

Reading through the current draft of this article, the infortmation contain within is true as I have listened to all of the recordings, spinoffs, and interviews. I have read all the articles mentioned. That said, many of these entries need to be cited properly as seen in the reference section and not just links to the relevant information. This is no reason to delete the entries but if someone(maybe Kim Siever) could properly reference this information then we'd actually have a comprehensive well balance article that is cited properly according to wikipedia and academic citation methods. --Pincher Peigan March 14, 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

defining status

Okay, let's try to define cult-like status. If I've never heard of the band Phish before, but am told they have a cult-like following, first thing I'd do is google "Phish." Well, if you google Brocket 99, on page 1 alone I find two fan-based websites, one of which sells official "gear." I see a film website. I see that the film has been featured at an International Film Festival. I see a film review by a national literary and arts magazine. I see a Wikipedia entry, for heaven's sake. Seems to me there's a culture surrounding the phonomenon. Just because I've never heard of it while in Montreal does that make it any less popular to its devotees & detractors? Just because I've never heard of Phish, do they not exist?Mydinque 14:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

-->Exactly. I havenn't heard of Kim Siever, so does he not exist. Read the "Is There a Lenny Red-Nuts Article."--Professor of Brocketology, June 26, 2007

No. It means, I am not notable. Or rather, not notable enough. --Kmsiever 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Going over all the revisions, I have noticed the issue with this wikipedia article is that either it is being edited to become Brocket 99 :Rockin' the Country. In this case, a separate article should be written for the Brocket 99 Rockin' the Country. Or the Kim Siever camp is dismissing very valid sources of information and instead makes this article based on infrotmation known in the early 1990's. There is a third camp which is more focused on the spinoffs, and again there be a separate article for the spinoffs, although they are a relevant inclusion into this Brocket 99 article. --Pincher Peigan

Most important question

I think the most important question on anyone's mind that's followed this discussion for a while - beyond that of who did it, and who cares? - is who is Kim Siever, and why does he take Brocket 99 so seriously? Moreover, why has he set himself up as some kind of omniscient Traffic Cop over this particular page, controlling, limiting and deleting any comments or content not posted by himself? (64.180.9.176 00:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia has several policies for the content posted on it. See WP:COPY, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS as a few examples. This article is already poorly written; it needs a clean up, not copying and pasting copy from other websites. The issue isn't who I am. The issue is whether and how this article can be improved (fanboy contributions notwithstanding). --Kmsiever 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Then rewrite the damn article instead is reinstaing the very limited definition--Professor of Brocketology, June 26, 2007

I did. Four months ago. Then you came along and removed all those edits. Hopefully, the current version is more appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Statements are objective, many of them are cited, and the bulk of the content is original wording. --Kmsiever 17:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging from the speed of your reply, I'd say who you are IS part of the issue, but we'll leave that for another time. The article can be improved by factual information being permitted to stay posted once it appears. What constitutes "factual" information about Brocket 99 according to your yardstick of measurement? What or who are your sources? I'm far from being a 'fanboy' of this program, but I think it's important to consider other points of view than your own if you want to get to the bottom of the matter ... or at least as close as anyone's likely to get. (64.180.9.176 01:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Kim Siever seems to want proof and more proof. Why doesn't he listen to the interviews and make it up his own mind from that. He seems to want to be the spokesman for Brocket 99, yet he knows very little about the program. If anyone is a fanboy, it is Siever being a fanboy for Nilesh Patel's film.-Professor of Brocketology June 26, 2007.

There's nothing wrong with facts, 64.180.9.176. We just need to make sure the facts are in our own words, those facts come verifiable sources, and the sources are properly cited. Professor of Brocketology, it's not me who wants proof; it's Wikipedia. Any claims made in an article need to be cited. Read the links to the policies I provided in my previous comment. For the record I haven't seen Patel's film. --Kmsiever 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that Nilesh Patel's fan section have come aboard and this has tuned into let's promote Nielsh's film and how great it is. Again, you want proof, talk to Michale Anthony who is Head of the Brocketology Department at Brocket University. He owns the copyright and is the most knowledgebale expert of Brocket 99, aside from the Creators of Brocket 99(wherever they are, god bless them!). Leave up the info and give me a chance to reference actual recorded interviews and documented sources.--Professor of Brocketology

Clearly, anyone that's posted to this topic so far has done so approaching it from his own perspective, with his own attitudes about the subject matter firmly in place. I would take issue with Professor of Brocketology's approach, or at least with some of his 'facts'. By the same token, Siever's use of the term 'fanboy' may have some merit, although is somewhat misplaced when his version of how he'd prefer the page to look has developed currently into nothing more than a promo page for Patel's film - which he admits to never having seen anyway. The devil's in the details - For Professor of Brocketology, it is a matter of getting it ALL out, unsubstantiated or not. For Kim Siever, it is merely a game of technicalities - crossing the T's and dotting the I's, and taking everything much too personally. For Nilesh Patel, it is nothing more than simply trying to make a name for himself with films about this contentious issue or that, whatever it may be, and whether he actually has half as much concern for the implications of Brocket 99 one way or the other is a point that I think is debatable. And here we debate the merits of those technicalities, with no one actually having the facts - although maintaining that veneer of supposedly being in search of them. This page tells us absolutely zero about Brocket 99, while at the same time taking great pains to avoid sources of information that will. Nilesh Patel, the Lethbridge Herald, the Globe and Mail and 'Sounds Like Canada' cannot be considered sources of information about this radio show. As far as Patel's film is concerned (people that have actually seen the film they promote with such irascibility seem to be in short supply) we have the testimony of a letter-writer to the Lethbridge Herald (Gordon McFarlane, "Letters to the Editor", Oct. 7, 2006) who says that Patel's film is " ... shallow, pointless, and no less offensive than the 20-year-old audio tapes of the mock radio program which it is allegedly about ... (it) promotes those negative stereotypes which the original Brocket 99 tapes played upon by selective editing of interviews with First Nations peoples, some of whom were intoxicated during the interviews ... It does not, as Mr. Patel claims, represent much of a "diversity of perspectives." This is from someone who has seen the film that is promoted on this page as so valuable a representation of what Brocket 99 is all about. Although the officially self-appointed hall monitor for this page refuses to access the website 'Brocket99.net' as a source of usable information, the reference to "AIDS Radio" being a source of inspiration for the originators of the Brocket 99 program is a factoid that is found nowhere else previously but that website and the 'Ernie Scar Interview'. Perhaps it takes a leap of faith to believe it, but the answers to the burning questions everyone seeks (or thinks they already know) are all there in interviews and statements by the creators of the program that have appeared over the last four years or so - and no, I am not connected to that website in any way; I've simply spent the time it takes to go through all the material that is on there. It is in some ways quite bizarre that Wikipedia thinks an underground comedy tape from a generation ago warrants their coverage - and by that same token further promotion - on their website. But if it has to exist, it can be made more accurate, or at least more well-rounded by allowing access to different points of view and sources of information beyond what are currently being allowed by this page's current watchdogs. (64.180.9.176 18:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

This isn't about what I went. It's about presenting an objective article. Read the policies to which I linked earlier to understand that it's not just me who asks for this. --Kmsiever 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

---> The information I presented is accurate and factual. Again see the copyright holder Michael Anthony of Brocket99.net and MAACP who has done extensive interviews with Ernie Scar, Charles Kang, Lenny Red-Nuts, Dick Twang, Mark Campbell, Cowboy SmithX, and others who worked on Brocket 99 or one of it's many spinoffs.etc. I have cited sources for what I have written but no one seems to want to listen to the damn interviews. I am hoping Michael will finally show up on this site and clear somethings up. Unfortunately we have Kim Siever on one hand being the totalitarian expert of Brocket 99, wanting sources cited, crying copyright infringement when the whoel wikipedia site is copyright infringement. Then on the other hand, we have the Crazy Canuck who is the spokesperson for "WE LOVE NILESH PATEL and his BROCKET 99 FILM" which really doesn't look at what Brocket 99 is and isn't. Let's cut the bull$hit, keep the usefull information, cite some more sources, accept brocket99.net as the CANON of Brocket 99 and related material, and move into 2007 where Brocket 99 was created by RADIO DISC JOCKEY'S and not the old arcaic notion that Brocket 99 was created by some college kids from the U of A.--Professor of Brocketology.

Read the policies I linked to earlier. It is not I who wants citations, it's Wikipedia. The problem is not only do you not include citations, you erase all the citations I added this week. Here I am trying to provide verifiable support for several of the pre-existing statements on this article, and you go deleting them. --Kmsiever 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

--->To Kim and the Canuck. You need to actaully listen to the Brocket 99 Party Pack which includes the Interview with Ernie Scar, the full version of Brocket 99, and the spinoffs mentioned here. We understand that you want citations, but what is the differene between a citation that is right by the statement and a citation that is at the bottom of the page in footnote form. Seriosuly, listen to the topic material in the Brocket 99 Canon, and then you'll will understand where the Brocketologist and others are coming from. Michale Anthony, American Shock Jock owns the legal Copyright to Brocket 99 so ask him. I'm sure someone can furnish you with hsi email address. If you want to be the Torch Holder for Brocket 99 Wikipedia, then you need to do more reseacrh to what is actually out there. Seriously, the info you have is limited to what the rest of us Albertans knew in the early 1990's. Let's get this Brocket 99 definition up to the date and knowledge we have in 2007. Contact Michael, and listen to all the CDs including the Ernie Scar Interview. You'll learn alot.

Please follow the Wikipedia policies as listed at the top of the page:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• No personal attacks
• Be welcoming
• Article policies
• No original research
• Neutral point of view
• Verifiability

Canuckle 13:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

--))Please follow good guidelines regarding the full canon of Brocket 99. Honestly it should be up to Ernie Scar to decidew ho and what is in the Canon of Brocket 99. Hopefully he'll make an appearance here. Here are some good guidelines:

• Realize that Michael Anthony of brocket99.net owns the copyright of Brocket 99.
• Understand that there is more than one viewpoint other than the Patellian viewpoint.
• Understand 2 corn on the cobs for 99cents is not a good deal anymore.
• Realize that Brocket, Alberta has the cheapest gas anywhere.
• Quit deleting other works.
• Listen to the full copy of Brocket 99, all interviews(Ernie Scar, Mark Campbell, Cowboy SmithX, Charles, Kang, Lenny Red-Nuts, Dick Twang Band, etc.) before you can qualify yourself as a well read person of Brocket 99 lore.
• The audio interviews speak for themselves and clear up a lot of false info.

Southern Alberta

Infobox

Now that there are two documentaries (even though one is still in production), I wonder if we still need the infobox. Does the infobox allow for more than one film? --Kmsiever 16:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know but think that is a question that can be asked once and if the 2nd production is completed and/or becomes notable. Canuckle 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

--)) The 2nd Production should be noted whether it is completed or not. Canuckle or should I say Nilesh Patel, needs to be able to accept more than one viewpoint.--Southern Alberta July 18, 2007

• It is noted and I added the link to the production company as a source as evidence that it did not violate guidelines on speculation. If you can find reliable sources for information, please discuss it in civil fashion on this Talk page. Continued pushing of a single point-of-view is disruptive. Canuckle 15:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

-->>Of course, you added the whole "Rockin' the Country" bit to promote your er I mean Nilesh's film. Your point of view is narrow and misinformed and is what we knew about Brocket 99 back in the early 90's.--Southern Alberta

external links

I reviewed WP guidelines on external links, (see: WP:EL), to assess www.brocket99.net.

What to link "There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

• Is it accessible to the reader?
• Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
• Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

...When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors."

Some of the points against as per Links normally to be avoided:

1. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
2. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
3. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.

Canuckle 13:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT TO LINK:

Again, you need to listen to the interviews on CD and do much more research. I'd like to see B99 info be expanded upon instead of making the whole wikipedia definition of Brocket 99 just about Nilesh Patel's film and info outdated even back in the mid 90's.--))Southern Alberta

--->>The links whether they be selling products or not, is the copyright holder holder, has all the interviews and the complete Brocket 99 recording, th spinoffs and so on. His site has to be taken as Canon. How is it unverifiable reseacrh when he has the full interview with Ernie Scar. What do you want, blood samples, voice analysis, etc? There is no other definitive source of Brocketology, so Brocket99.net is the one and only CANON of Brocket 99. Again, listen to the interview with Ernie Scar and the other material. Let's not live in 1990 with that limited information. I want to expand what we know about the Brocket 99 universe. So should you, if you have any interest in the Brocket 99 Radio Parody.

• While a site can be a source about itself to a certain extent, Wikipedia requires independent, third-party, reliable sources. If the canon is only recognized by itself and not by other reliable sources, than I'm afraid it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Canuckle 17:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "needs infobox" tag

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 19:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

Since this article is clearly more about the Nilesh Patel film and not the "Brocket 99" radio show, perhaps it would be more accurate to add "The Movie" to the title (?) (96.48.205.216 (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC))

It's about both. "Brocket 99 is the name of an underground comedy audio tape that parodies aboriginal people in Canada and the name of two documentary films about the tape". --Kmsiever (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting changes

Kim Siever, quit changing the Brocket 99 thing back. This is not the Kim Siever or Nilesh Patel Comedy Hour. If you want to make this about Nilesh's film then make a separate page for it instead of removing vital information from the Brocket 99 article. All of these facts can and are substantiaed, so why don't you go buy or download the recordings and then go from there. You have no knowledge of Brocket 99. You know as much as I did back in 1991.Pincher Peigan

You're telling me to not revert the article, yet that is exactly what you did: revert it to an older version. I realize this isn't about me; this is about following Wikipedia policies. Of course, if you have gone through all the comments above, you have realized already this is all I have called for before. I am honestly ambivalent toward the tape itself and the documentaries. I really don't care about the content of either, and haven't read/watched either. None of that matters though. Wikipedia doesn't care whether editors have experienced the subject of an article. All it cares about is that content added to articles is from published secondary sources, is cited, and is written in the editor's own words. Content should not be from primary sources, should not go uncited, and should not be pilfered from another website. All I want is for articles to follow established policies. If you want to add new information, fine; but please ensure it follows WP:COPY, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:RS at least. --Kmsiever (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocket99 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who most of the people are who associate themselves with this page but I can assure everyone as the owner of Brocket 99 and the official website, that Kmsiever (and Nilesh Patel for that matter) is NOT associated with Brocket 99 in any way. However everyone is entitled to their opinion. What they are NOT entitled to is editing or deleting entries at will. If any one has doubts as to my claims, you may certainly email me via my website for clarification. brocket99.net/email.htm - Michael Anthony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brocket99 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalizing the page is no way to convince anyone that your position should be considered let alone respected. It doesn't assume good faith and often, as in this case, contains personal attacks. I understand and appreciate your desire to integrate content from your website into this article. Please read through the policies and guidelines I have link several times above. Then, by all means, add content that adheres to those guidelines and policies. I'm not trying to discourage anyone from editing. I (and others in this talk page) simply want to ensure articles on Wikipedia follow established conventions. --Kmsiever (talk) 03:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spin offs

I hope to resolve some of the issues between the editors and the Brocket people.

One of the issues is that the Brocket people see the tape as an ungoing thing. KangChulsu manages an indy entertainer named Lenny Red-Nuts who released an indy CD of comedic tracks based around the Brocket 99 concept. While I agree with the wikipedians that Lenny Red-Nuts and the other spin-offs are not notable enough to mention by name, can it be agreed to mention that Brocket 99 has inspired entertainers to carry on the Brocket mythos in much the same way that fan fiction authors do in other genres?

I would suggest a sentence such as the following in the 1986 tape section:

"Since the recording of the original tape, comedians and singers have been inspired to continue the Brocket 99 mythos and have released their own Brocket 99 CDs independently."

The problem of course is referencing this, as I can't find any references to our Brocket spinoffs on any third-party media out there. I don't know if that one sentence requires a references or if can be accepted as is. Regards. BrocketBuck (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Every claim made on Wikipedia should be backed up by a source that proves it, preferably an independent source. Using a blog post as a source to support something claimed about a blog, for example, is not independent. —Kmsiever (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks Kmsiever. Then the onus is on us to find a reputable independent source. BrocketBuck (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've spent the last two days trying to find any independent references to the Brocket spinoffs, but there's absolutely nothing out there that I can find, that isn't from self-published sources. At this time I'm now inclined to think that these indy spinoffs are not notable enough to include in the article, sadly. Regards. BrocketBuck (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate your professionalism and your research in this. I’m glad someone else finally came to the same conclusion I did a long time ago. This is the issue I have had with the edit warring on this article. We have all these drive-by additions without and substantiated, objective sources. When we remove them, the authors of those edits think we’re tying to sanitize the article or something. We’re just trying to provide accurate, reliable information. If you do find anything showing notability, by all means post it here. It’d be great to flesh out this article a bit more. —Kmsiever (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kmsiever and thanks. I have been editing wikipedia for a while now but this is my first account, so I do understand the whole notability issue and references. I think a good analogy in this case, the Beatles were a band that existed in the 60's. The Beatles inspired a lot people to start their own Beatles tribute bands that play in the local bar on a Friday night. However 99% of those tribute bands are not notable enough for wikipedia. I have been a fan of Brocket 99 for a few years now, and I have to admit it wasn't until finding the wikipedia article and seeing all the edit warring going on that I even realized there was such a thing as the spin off artists. Now obviously, since I am a fan, I do have that bias, but as a fan even I have to admit it's dicey to talk about the spin off artists in this article. To me it seems like the notable elements of the article are the tape itself because of the cult following, and the film which had some coverage with CBC. It looks to me like the official Brocket site even took the spin off CDs down, so I can't buy one and check it out, but aside from this, everything else appears to be blogs and message boards. I don't know if there's anything else that's exclusively in print media, I'm not from Alberta, so I've never seen that. But who knows. BrocketBuck (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, especially Kim Siever and BrocketBuck. As a fan as well and as Lenny Red-Nuts Manager, I've done a lot of research on this topic. It is frustrating when valid information from the Brocket99.net including actual interviews, articles and so on are not considered valid. As for the Beatles analogy, the problem is that there is a huge difference between Beatles Tribute bands playing in no name bars and a spinoff artists who is/was actually carried by Apple Records right along side of the Beatles very much like how the spin-off albums were carried along side the Brocket 99 albums. Please keep in mind that Michael Anthony of Brocket99.net is the copyright holder and the premier expert in everything that is Brocketology.

Now what I am not understanding is how Nilesh Patel's Film "Brocket 99: Rockin' the Country" is considered a third party source of Brocket information, yet the actual interview of Ernie Scar is not. Both are sold and would be considered for profit releases. This is how I see the Brocket 99 spin-off cds as well. Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. There was a third party interview of Michael Anthony done by the Don and Mike Show on the FM station 106.7FM WJFK in 2003 about Brocket 99 and Michael's involvement with Brocket 99, etc. Also myself (Charles Kang), Lenny Red-Nuts, and Sonny Mosquito were interviewed in July 2010 in two separate interviews by S.T.I.M. Radio out of Las Vegas. Previously Lenny Red-Nuts and myself (Charles Kang) were interviewed by The Michael Anthony Show and MAACP. Lenny Red-Nuts was also mentioned by Brocket, Alberta filmmaker Cowboy SmithX on his Neoccentric Entertainment site [I can put links up here for all of the above if allowed]. There are also the tons of torrent sites that have the Brocket 99 Party Pack(includes Ernie Scar Interview and Spin-Off CDs) for download. So would these interviews be considered third party data and be considered verifiable? What about spin-off CDs mentioned on other websites?

Michael Anthony of Brocket99.net did recently take the spin-off CDs down as he wanted to more concentrate on the original Brocket 99 recording. He could probably explain it better that I could so hopefully he posts here.

The Brocket 99 Spin-off CDs were put in hardcopy print as an audio CD. Lenny Red-Nuts has appeared on the Indian Idol section of Dick Twangs third CD(has UPC bar code and registered with Socan), so is this considered verifiable? Again I have a link but am unsure if I am allowed to post it here. Please advise?

I would like to see the information about Brocket 99 to be included so we are working with 2010 information and not 1991 information. I understand the need for verifiable sources. I would be willing to get BrocketBuck the interviews, cds, etc. he needs on all of the above, if he is willing to incorporate the relevant and verifiable data into the Brocket 99 Wikipedia article.

KangChulsu (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)KangChulsu

No one is saying Nilesh’s film is a source. It is simply mentioned in this article as being notable, just like the original audio tape. The existence of the interviews, the CDs, etc, don’t make them notable. Mention in third-party, published sources does. —Kmsiever (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I really do understand what you're trying to do. I've added content to articles and have had my changes reverted because my sources weren't third-party. It happens. I personally have never done a reference where the source is an audio interview so I'm not familiar how that works or what the rules are. I do agree that the article should reflect that Brocket 99 has inspired spin-off artists, but if these spin-off artists have never received coverage in a third-party media, then I see Kmsierver's point too. If I dressed up as Gene Simmons and started calling myself Lil' Gene, and put out a CD of me doing comedic Gene Simmons songs, and even if Gene heard of me and sold a handful of discs on his website, I still wouldn't be notable enough to warrant any wikipedia coverage. Not unless I had coverage in The Globe and Mail or The Toronto Sun or something like that would I begin to approach notability. I would be if my comedy CD charted. A CD having a bar code and being funded by SOCAN isn't enough on its own to warrant notability. I have several friends who've gone that route with their indy bands, but they're still not notable enough, they've never played outside their home towns and never had a newspaper take any notice. I really do think that you make some good points, especially about incorporating info from the Ernie Scar interview (which I have not heard yet), but I don't know what the rules are about using something like that. Maybe if content from the Scar interview has been printed in a reputable third-party media? Does such a thing exist? To be honest I'm kind of shocked that Brocket 99 hasn't received more national coverage! I first heard of it about 15 years ago, on the other side of the country, and yet there's so little coverage about it that I can find. Unfortunately, wikipedia isn't really the place to begin creating coverage. I think it's a shame there isn't (that I'm aware of) a MacLeans article on Brocket 99, and I think it's a major ommission considering the life that this tape (now CD) has had nationwide. So believe me, I'm not trying to humour you here, and you have my full and total support as a fan. However, as an amature editor with limited knowledge of the grey areas of wikipedia, I don't know what else we can add to the article. BrocketBuck (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your comments. I do understand now about the 3rd party references. Is web content considered valid or does it have to be a hard copy publication like a newspaper, magazine, book to be considered? Please clarify. The Dick Twang Albums are carried both at brick and mortar CD stores such as HMV as well as can be ordered through the library. Brocket 99 did receive national coverage due to in part Nilesh Patel's film "Brocket 99: Rockin' the Country." Brocket 99 is also played in the background of the kitchen scene in the Fubar movie. As for the Spin-Off discs including Lenny Red-Nuts "Tough Buck From Brocket" and the various interview CDs "Mark Campbell, Ernie Scar, Dick Twang/Elvis Manywounds, Director of Fubar, etc." I think should be considered notable. Regardless, both of you and others should listen to these CDs to get a much larger view of Brocket 99. Even though brocket99.net does not carry the music spin-off cds anymore, I have asked him to print up copies for those who specifically email him requesting these. I do think the Brocket 99 Wikipedia Article should be expanded as there is so much relevant real information out there regarding this recording. I would also suggest considering the brocket99news.wordpress.com as a third party source. I would like for this link to be included with the other links at the bottom of the Brocket 99 Wiki with the other links as this site is just as relevant. How would I go about doing this without the link being reverted? Please advise. I would truly suggest looking at the brocket99news.wordpress.com site to learn more as well as brocket99.net . If I can find other third party sources for any of the above, I will. I do know Michael Anthony of brocket99.net and MAACP.net was mentioned in the Brocket 99 article in the Sun paper as a shock jock. Perhaps someone here has a pdf of this? To Kim Siever and BrocketBuck, you can contact me at kangmedia@gmail.com and I'll do what I can to email you links to verifiable 3rd party sources. KangChulsu (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)KangChulsu

Third party sources don’t have to be newspapers. As found in WP:SOURCES, “articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. Consider the following, also taken from that article:

“the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.”

“Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.”

“Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.”

I highly encourage you to read all the information on that page. —Kmsiever (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I don't really have much to add beyond what Kmsiever has said. The difficult thing about it is that there really isn't much out there in terms of sources to use. I am sure the article can still be fleshed out a bit, just listening to the tape on the weekend reminded me of all those AC/DC songs on it. However citing sources -- that's the problem. One weird thing though -- when it comes to copyrights, with all the songs on there by Hank Jr. and so on, do they license out the songs? BrocketBuck (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi BrocketBuck and Kmsiever as well as everyone else watching this Brocketology discussion. The problem with most Brocket 99 information out there is that it by wikipedia standards is largely unacceptable. The same can be said for Nilesh Patel's film "Rockin' the Country" as nowadays anyone can make a film just as easily as write a book or create a website, yet Nilesh Patel's film is seems as a credible source of information, whereas Brocket99.net, Brocket99news.wordpress.com, the various music and interview CDs of Brocket 99 and spin-off artists are discounted as fanboyish and not acceptable. What is the difference between "Brocket 99 Rockin' the Country" and "The Ernie Scar Interview" when both can be considered self financed and self published? Please explain? Keep in mind Patel's film is simply a conversation and opinion film that does not answer any questions about Brocket 99.

There are hardcopy articles about Brocket 99 out there both from the newspapers Lethbridge Herald and from the Edmonton/Toronto/Vancouver etc. Sun paper. Are these credible sources? Right now I feel that whatever I put up even if credible sources will be reverted by Kim Siever.

There are actual interviews, one with Michael Dowse on CD discussing Brocket 99 and the portion of Brocket 99 "Dress Warmly" used in the kitchen scene. Why is this interview not considered credible? Does voice analysis by NASA have to be done to prove this is indeed Michael Dowse? Could Michael Dowse's voice be Ernie Scar's in disguise[joke]?

I get the need for credible sources but when I post something like the Don and Mike Show Brocket 99 episode which is a real FM radioshow and a credible source(not self published), the article is reverted by Siever. Why is this?

So if BrocketBuck and Kim Siever could respond, it would be appreciated, so that way I know what is a credible and an acceptable source of information, and I will know that the additional information won't be reverted.

For me and any other fans of Brocket 99[Kim Siever is probably not a fan, so what is his interest?] it is important to update the Brocket 99 wiki page with information so we can actually live in an enlightened 2010 and not in the dark ages of 1986.

Anyung! KangChulsu (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)KangChulsu a.k.a. Charles Kang

Hi again Charles! I would say that the way it looks to me is that the "Rockin' The Country" film isn't being used so much as a resource, more like part of the subject. To me it makes sense to have the two things in the same article. If there was a separate article for the movie, it would probably be suggested that they be merged anyway.

I would definitely say the hardcopy articles are reliable sources. This is what I suggest. As you can see there is one paragraph of the article that needs a citation. Surely one of those articles must mention the fact that the tape is loaded with AC/DC song after AC/DC song, as this is one of the main features and running jokes of the tape. In fact sometimes I'll run into a friend who'll say, "What's the name of that tape with the Indian radio station that plays all the AC/DC songs?" What I would do is, take a look at other wikipedia articles that have used newspaper references. Copy the formatting, reference that paragraph, and let's see how it looks. I'm sure Kmsiever will look at it and be fair about it. I mean he knows a lot more about wikipedia, rules, formats and so on than I do. If everybody is happy, we can move forward. Anyung! BrocketBuck (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see if I can find those articles with Brocket 99 content and update the page with relevant information. Hopefully Kmsiever does not revert the page yet again. As for "Rockin' the Country" not being included as a resource, but as part of the subject, then why are not all the spin-off and interview cds not included as well as they are supplementary as well? Again there is so much good information out there regarding Brocket 99, that it is a shame that Kmsiever reverts and has reverted a number of Brocket 99 pages by different people. There was a page revision posted by Pincher Peigan that has a lot of great information as well as nice laid out page with everything in one place. That of course was reverted by guess who? Here is the link for those of you who are interested: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Brocket_99&oldid=277566205

If anyone out there has credible information to add regarding Brocket 99, I think this would be the time to do so. Remember to make sure info is credible according to Wikipedia and Sieverpedia specifications or else the page will get reverted in under a day.KangChulsu (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)KangChulsu

Hi Charles. That's kind of what I was getting at when I first started posting here -- that I think the article should reflect the fact that the spin off artists exist. I had no idea that they even existed until I stumbled across this article and the controversy here. I also had no idea that Michael Dowse used Brocket 99 content in two of his movies. (Maybe 3, Fubar 2 is yet to come out.) My personal feeling is this. The article should at least mention that the spin off's exist, and the article should also mention that Brocket 99 can be heard playing in the background. Perhaps stating at what time in the movie it can be heard. There just has to be a citation out there to reference this! I love Fubar and I've seen the movie at least 30 times, but I never noticed this before. I'd consider that a movie easter egg.

A Corporal in the Canadian Military serving in Kabul, Afghanistan, sent in a picture of him holding an I Love Brocket 99 Sign and other pictures of Bomb Disarming Robots with Brocket 99 stickers on them. Someone sent his commanding officer a link to the pictures. The Corporal was immediately reprimanded and was ordered to request Brocket99.net to remove the pictures." Now something like that would need a citation, but surely that made the news somewhere. Maybe CBC or something. It would have to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic, but if there's a legit third-party citation out there, that would be potentially notable.

I do think that picking on Kmsiever won't help though. BrocketBuck (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ernie K. Scar

Actually, the "K" in Ernie K. Scar was given to me by Don and Mike several years ago in the process of their interview with Michael Anthony in 2007 ... or was it 2008? Annahow, in an effort to circumvent Sieverpedia, I will make myself available for a day or two or three, or until this gets completely out of control, to answer any questions you may have, since there seems to be some discrepency between fact and fiction regarding a 25-year-old radio show that has sees to have garnered some publicity over the last quarter-century. If my input is not deemed 'varifiable' enough, then that will be the end of it. Take advantage of the opportunity while you can ...

Ernie K. Scar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.212.110 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ernie. Since Wikipedia cannot use primary sources, I would say you can start by posting some articles and acceptable third-party sources here on the talk page so we can all discuss them and see what can be used. That's been the problem here -- the scarcity of reliable third-party sources. They appear to be extremely rare. Check out WP:SOURCES, and if you've got anything usable in your archives, let's see it and see if we can use it! Thanks man. BrocketBuck (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sad to say but the person who did the voice of Ernie Scar as well as other Brocket 99 characters has passed away at the age of 49. I am not sure how to enter this as part of the Brocket 99 wiki as I am sure that some here will delete the post because the information comes from brocket99.net, hence why I posting the information here. Perhaps someone here can update the Brocket 99 wiki article to reflect Ernie's passing. http://brocket99.net/scar.htm and http://brocket99news.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/the-great-beyond/ and http://www.myspace.com/dicktwangband/blog/542233933 KangChulsu (talk) 16:56, 26 Febraury 2011 (UTC)KangChulsu

Oh my God are you serious? That is way too young...I am SO SORRY to hear this. What a loss.BrocketBuck (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Kang, and all, I hope you find what I wrote to be appropriate. I think this news is important enough that it needs to be mentioned in the article for reasons that I hope are self evident. I also think that Charles Kang is well established as a foremost experty on this subject, as evident by the ample discussions above. The way I worded the sentence was as accurate as I was able given the known facts. "It was reported...", and "still anonymous" for example. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. BrocketBuck (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought what your wrote was appropriate and to the point. I still do believe Michael Anthony's site http://brocket99.net and my site http://brocket99news.wordpress.com should be considered valid 3rd party sources of information. There are other 3rd party sources I could refer people to but this would reveal Ernie Scar's real identity, which I promised years ago to never reveal. I appreciate your faith in my expertise of Brocket 99. I would consider myself more of an historian of Brocket 99 and I know much more about the history and background of Brocket 99 and Brocket,Alberta itself, than I do of the actual recording(which I know quite well). As Ernie Scar has left the building, I would have to defer expertise of Brocket 99 to Michael Anthony. If I have a Masters Degree in Brocketology, Michael Anthony would have his Ph.D. KangChulsu (talk) 10:37, 28 Febraury 2011 (UTC)KangChulsu

Ernie Scar's 2nd ex-wife posted a comment on Brocket99news at http://brocket99news.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/the-great-beyond/ stating the results of Ernie Scar's autoposy results. They came back as Ernie Scar dies of natural causes due to a coronary cause by clogged arteries. I figured this was relevant and hence added the information to the Brocket 99 wikipedia article. Perhaps someone here can phrase it better in the wikipedai article. KangChulsu (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)KangChulsu

As I am one of the few people who know Ernie Scar's true identity but have been sworn to secrecy, I am torn by the fact that I do think Ernie Scar's true identity should be revealed and at the same time Michael Anthony of Brocket99.net is still undecided on this matter. Ernie Scar's 2nd ex-wife had revealed his name in the past in her posts on Brocket99news.wordpress.com, but the name has been omitted by me for reasons some already mentioned up above. There have been a few Brockelogists over the years who have figured out Ernie Scar' real identity. Most recently one very astute Brocketologist correlated Ernie Scar's date of death of February 12, 2011 with online obituaries and was 100% correct. Upon decision by Michael Anthony, should he decide to reveal Ernie Scar's true identity, I will revert Ernie Scar's 2nd ex-wife's post to contain Ernie Scar's real name. I am truly hoping that Ernie Scar's real identity comes to light as there is other great work he has done both recorded when he was a real DJ at a radio station and a book he wrote that many Brocketologists would find interesting. KangChulsu (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)KangChulsu

A few people in the inner circle knew of Ernie Scar's true identity. A few also figured it out years ago. Due to the Lethbridge Herald article 2012 being published as well as Michael Anthony's Brocket99.net 2012 response, I have decided to publish Ernie Scar's true identity on the Brocket 99 page. For those of you still in the dark, his name is Tim Hitchner. All of us in the inner circle knew that one day someone would figure it out and publish the information outside of the internet. For myself, I wanted Tim's identity to be released upon his death. Michael Anthony on the other hand wanted Tim's identity to stay a secret. Mark Campbell expressed happiness that the real identity of Ernie Scar was released. I can't blame him as Mark was blamed by some as Ernie Scar and suffered for it. I do think it would be appropriate for someone to create a Tim Hitchner page on wikipedia as now Tim Hitchner is a notable person. Brocket 99 wasn't Tim's only work. There are others he has published under his own name as well as broadcast, documentaries, and DJ material that would be of interest to the Brocket 99 and/or Tim Hitchner fans. KangChulsu (talk) 10:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)KangChulsu

Spin Offs II

Please check out the following article: Tube Bar prank calls

The Discography section contains clear spin-off product. It contains a product called "Red's Tube Bar Christmas" (Single) by an artist named Bob Ryan. This is clearly similar to the situation with the Brocket 99 spin-offs. We should create a discography section here, with the different CD issues of the tape, and the different spin-offs, in the same format. The precedent is there. The discography on that article is entirely independent releases, just like Brocket 99. Regards, BrocketBuck (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous Brocket 99 Spin-offs that should be included in the Brocket 99 wikipedia article. Some have tried to do so in the past only to have Kim Siever revert what has been added. They are still is the history section of the Brocket 99 wikipedia article, but you'll just have to do some digging. KangChulsu (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)KangChulsu

Reverting Page back to Previous Version, Deleting pages, and Redirecting Pages Annoying

First we had Kmsiever who knows very little about Brocket 99 constantly, and I mean constantly reverting the Brocket 99 Page back to in accurate information from 1989. Now I have updated the Brocket 99 page and created a dedicated Tim Hitchner page, and suddenly the Brocket 99 has pictures and essential Tim Hitcher's full name removed. Then the Tim Hitchener page is erased and a redirect is created. This is after I verified and posted the validity of the links on his talk page. Tim Hitchner is a notable person yet his entire page was erased then redirected back to Brocket 99. This is quite annoying. So my question to Bearcat is, why did you remove Tim Hitchner's full name(but of course leave Nilesh Patel's full name), the pictures of 1090 CHEC as it looked at the time, and the 3 pictures of Tim Hitchner? And why delete the Tim Hitchner page and redirect it to Brocket 99? So please explain this to me so that I can better understand your motivations and the rules of wikipedia. Also I really don't understand why you would remove the 1090 CHEC wikipedia page and redirect it to a different radio station in the same building? 1090 CHEC should have its own dedicated wikipedia page. So please explain your motivations? KangChulsu (talk) 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)KangChulsu

Firstly: WP:AFD already determined that Hitchner's notability was entirely tied to Brocket 99 itself, and that he consequently did not qualify for a separate standalone biography under our inclusion rules — and the fact that the separate standalone biography that you recreated a few days ago consisted only of a repetition of content that's already in this article, with not even one single solitary detail about his life independently of the Brocket 99 tape, only reconfirms that. AFD decisions are final unless you can make a much stronger case than this that new evidence of notability has come to light in the years since the decision — once AFD has weighed in, nobody is allowed to simply recreate the same article, or one which rests on the same claim of notability without adding anything new to the pot, ever again. (It is possible for a topic that's been AFDed in the past to qualify for a new article again if their basic notability increases — e.g. a musician whose article was deleted when he was still just an aspiring wannabe reposting his own EPK for promotional purposes can be recreated again when his new song actually becomes a real verifiable hit and real media start covering him — but the new article has to make a stronger claim of notability than the first version did.)

Secondly, WP:NMEDIA is quite explicit that radio stations do not get separate spinoff articles for every individual change of call sign or frequency that they may have gone through in the past — a radio station gets one article at its current call sign, which covers its entire history. CHEC is not a different radio station from CHLB, but rather it's the same radio station which has simply changed its format and branding — so it does not get three separate articles for its CHEC, CKRX and CHLB phases; it gets one article at its current call sign.

And finally, the content changes that I made to this article did not "remove" any information as you allege; I simply rerranged the information in accordance with Wikipedia's content rules. For one thing, the photographs of the radio studio and Hitchner may not be placed at the very top of the article so that the infobox is bumped halfway down the page; the infobox goes flush with the introduction and the photographs go into the body. And secondly, per WP:LASTNAME, we do not repeat and wikilink Hitchner's full name each and every time he's mentioned at all in the article; we give his full name and wikilink it only the first time it appears, and any subsequent references to him after that are by his last name only, not wikilinked. I did not remove any information from the article at all (well, except for the inclusion of the radio station's entire contact info, complete with telephone and fax numbers, in the infobox where it didn't belong) — I simply copyedited it for compliance with our content and formatting rules. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Brocket 99 Article does look much better now. Yes, Tim Hitchner is well known as a radio dj and has done some other things in his life notable but right now I don't have anyway to support it. I felt the 1090 CHEC info should have carried over to the CHLB page and there was additional info about the full history of this radio station. If I find more notable info on Tim Hicthner, I can post it first in Talk and then let me know if the info is enough to justify creating an independant page for Tim Hitchner. Regarding the then address, phone number, etc of 1090 CHEC, is there a place that the address can be included either on the CHLB page or/and on the Brocket 99 page? The phone numbers are outdated but the address seems relevant as people may wish to visit this landmark. Since about 2004, I knew the true identity of Tim Hitchner and his Brocket 99 connection, but I kept my word to keep the information secret as long as he lived. Once Tim passed away and I got the ok from his daughter, then I posted the identity of Ernie Scar and his connection to Brocket 99 on wikipedia. Obviously there was more than one person involved with making Brocket 99, but as long as they live, their annonymity will remain intact by me(not that I know who these other people are). KangChulsu (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)KangChulsu

We actually have a specific rule, for the record, that our articles are not allowed to contain direct contact information for the individuals, companies or organizations named in them. If the topic has a website we can link to that, and the person or company can certainly be contacted from there if they've provided contact information in that space — but we're not allowed to put any form of contact information directly into our articles for any reason.

I'm not opposed to carrying over some of the CHEC information into the CHLB article (which is in definite need of expansion and referencing improvements anyway), but I need some time to review what's appropriate and verifiable and what isn't. (Just for an example, you can't copy and paste text over directly from the CCF page the way you did for the stuff about Clyde Ross commenting on the switch to CKRX — we have to respect copyright, and cannot just plagiarize other websites.)

And finally, if you knew Tim Hitchner personally, then I need to advise you to read over our conflict of interest policy as well. It doesn't mean that you can never make any edits pertaining to him at all, I assure you, but you do need to exercise some extra caution to ensure that your personal relationship with him isn't affecting your judgement about his encyclopedic notability or lack thereof, about what's appropriate for an encyclopedia to say about him and what isn't, what's verifiable about him and what's inside knowledge that we can't reference to a reliable source, and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification regarding the contact information and so on. I have tried to be careful when posting information about Brocket 99 and Tim Hitchner in order that the info is appropriate, accurate, and reliable. Yes, there is much more that I know about Brocket 99 and Tim Hitchner, but as I cannot properly reference it, I have left it out. I am known as one of the experts of Brocket 99, so it is tough to see the Brocket 99 page from a few years back with information and misinformation known back in the late 1980's. The other issue with Brocket 99, is that is may never be mainstream not is it what is deemed politically correct by today's standards, and thus verifiable sources with accurate information are very few and far between. Tim Hitchner actually wrote a book about his road trip across Canada with a Hindu Religious Leader of the Hari Krishna, which is an amazing read. But as it was self published and few copies exist, I am unable to make reference to it. There is a plethora of Brocket 99 information out there including an interview with Tim Hitchner himself regarding Brocket 99, but these seem not be to accepted as canon as there are no or limited 3rd party references. Tim Hitchner also appeared throughout the officially released 2009 Dick Twang CD "Not Too Pretty Bad" reprising his role as Ernie Scar, but aside from a review I wrote on a fan site, there are not any sources considered a reference to a reliable source mentioning this. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is a lot of true interesting information out there about Brocket 99, but sadly most of the information cannot be used here on Wikipedia. Perhaps more references to a reliable source articles will be uncovered in the future. Thanks again for the clarification and your work to clean up and fix up the Brocket 99 page to Wikipedia standards.KangChulsu (talk) 1:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)KangChulsu

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Brocket 99. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.lethbridgeherald.com/front-page-news/students-say-brocket-99-tape-warrants-police-investigation-42812.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)