![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Eh, I don't really care. He posted his comment on the wrong page (supposedly), so I responded to it. Whether he sees it or not, I care not. He has already revealed to many other editors what kind of user he is (no, I am not saying all his edits are bad or that he is a horrible person). You can choose to believe whoever you want, it's not my problem. Just the fact that I got nominated for adminship by a user that both me and twsx respect greatly should tell you something (and no, not that he made a mistake). Sure I'm opinionated about certain things, but the majority of my edits are to protect and better wikipedia through vandal reversion/warning/reporting and adding helpful refs/sources/info to articles. I'm not saying twsx doesn't do these things either (I really wouldn't know, I do not stalk his edits and we mostly edit different things) but I'm just saying what kind of user I am. I'll let that speak for itself. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I was unable to file the report myself. Some stuff came up, and I'm only now getting back to Wikipedia. But you did a good job for your first try. It looks great for now. Oh yeah, and the reason I posted about the sockpuppetry on your talk page is because I thought you were an administrator <_< Oh well, things worked out ok. Cheers. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that, and I remember reverting one of his/her edits recently. I didn't know that their question had anything to do with the on-going content dispute they have, and I KNEW you 3 aren't socks of each other. :) Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. 82.38.65.47 has once again been changing the genres of band/album/song articles. I saw you gave him a final warning about it, and I thought you'd like to know about his edits and maybe report him to WP:AIV or something. Thanks. Tim meh ! 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain the articles that you have recently converted to redirects? LittleOldMe ( talk) 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, saw that on RC Patrol and figured it was a bit of a vandalism that needed to be cleared. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you moved the page. Thanks for helping. I just thought there was probably another article of the same name of so I kept the title. But thanks. Are you personlly interested in Thy Serpent? JazzlineB ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
are u talking about, ur the one who completly changes pages without premission, and isnt it past ur bed time? USEDfan ( talk) 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said to User:Londo06, it is common practice on WP:FOOTY not to name leagues' articles after their sponsored titles. For example, the article is Premier League, not Barclays Premier League. I just thought this was common practice on Wikipedia. Regardless, there are redirects from the sponsored names to the current names, so nothing is affected. – Pee Jay 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Used#Genre_paragrah_settlement
please go there and leave a comment, i think ur version migh tbe th eresolution. USEDfan ( talk) 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, news agencies like the BBC and Sky have to pay a fee to the Premier League in order to publish fixtures and live scores. Obviously the same restrictions do not apply to final results, but I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to display live Premier League scores. – Pee Jay 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, I don't get on here as often as I'd like. My decision regarding this was (to memory) based on there being no discography in the deleted version. I felt the discography tipped the balance and (my personal acid test) I could find the albums on Amazon. Basically I could see potential in the article. It seems since then it has survived an AfD and grown a lot. I'd only speedily delete an article under the recreation of deleted material criterion if it was a duplicate (or near duplicate) of what was deleted before. Even then I'd look to see if I agreed with the original reason for deletion. I hope this makes my position clearer. Thanks, Malla nox 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
once u complete a paragraph for the used discovery, then add it in, dont do half ass work cause it looks and osunds bad, once u complete the paragaph put it in and then ill make all the corrections but dont just put a half apragraph in the wikipeida. USEDfan ( talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You removed the following - "Due to technical issues in the studio, the band has been forced to cancel their European festival dates in order to ensure that the album is released this year." - because it was unsourced. Fair enough. But the only source is a myspace blog, and I know that Wikipedia doesn't accept myspace blogs as references. So what to do? U-Mos ( talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
if i remember correctly u are a 25 year old sucesful well educated man, and u have nothing better in life then to worry about a tiny little - ..*shakes head in amazment* also if we are gona follow that it says only studio albums shud be in the chronicalongal thingy or w/e its called. USEDfan ( talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Yeah the chronicalongal thingy lol. Landon1980 ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
and how come u didnt chang eit to jus the studio albums just like the rule said it shud, u only follow what u like. USEDfan ( talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You've been blocked for edit warring. See this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nouse4aname ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was not edit warring. I was restoring articles to a format that has been agreed upon by consensus here and here. The user provided no valid reasons for their edits, whereas I provided sufficient information, links etc to them. Furthermore, the revert war ceased a while ago, and this block seems to be punishment rather than prevention
Decline reason:
That's not a valid exception to 3RR. — Wikiacc ( ¶) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nouse4aname ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How about the fact that this block is clearly punishment and not to prevent more reverting
Decline reason:
As I noted here, blocks for edit warring seem perfectly appropriate for both accounts. WP:3RR: Do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. For future issues, please seek dispute resolution. — Scien tizzle 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nouse4aname ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
OK, so it seems that no one is willing to directly respond to my question. The last mainspace revert I made was at 21:12 (see [1] and [2]). Nearly one hour later I was blocked; see here [3]. Now, considering the reverts had ceased an hour before this block, please explain to me how this block is preventative rather than simple punishment, which I feel is in direct opposition to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I subsequently was engaged in a revert war on my own talk page, in which I was removing a 3RR warning. I appealed for help to deal with this situation [4], and it seems that as a result of asking for help, I was subsequently blocked. Hardly encouragement to seek admin intervention in future, is it? Now, on to the reasoning behind the "edit wars". Firstly, this user has been extremely disruptive for the past several months, insisting that his view is correct and that everyone else is wrong [5]. Essentially there were two things that I was reverting, which I felt I was entirely right in doing. Firstly was the addition of a "-" to the "last album/last single" field of infoboxes in the articles Demos from the Basement and A Box Full of Sharp Objects. As agreed here and here, the standard of formatting is to leave this field blank. This allows for a consistent, and more professional style throughout wikipedia. I was simply trying to maintain this, and felt that reverting the addition of the "-" was justified - what possible argument could there be to include it in these articles but not the thousands of others? The second was adding an unnamed, unlinked "TBA (2008)" to the most recent album/single infoboxes of Shallow Believer and Paralyzed (song). As neither song nor album has been released, are still untitled, may not even be out this year, let alone the fact that they do not have articles, according to the same formatting styles linked above, these fields should also be left blank, at least until an article is created. Again, what possible argument could there be to include this when such additions are regularly removed from other articles without argument. Thus I removed this also. I clearly explained to the user why I was making the edits described above, and considering that I felt I had a large consensus behind me, I felt entirely justified in reverting his edits, which I felt were disruptive and bordering on vandalism. This user was simply displaying the same stubborn, uncooperative attitude that he has become known for. It is not just myself that has reverted his edits, several other editors have been involved too. I am rather offended at how I have been treated here, and am somewhat disappointed at the complete lack of support that I have been shown when dealing with an obviously disruptive editor. I admit that I should not have continued reverting his edits, however I could see no logic for what he was doing, and he himself gave no valid reason for his edits, whereas I clearly explained, all of mine. I have been a contributor for over a year, and have made over 10,000 positive edits to wikipedia, however I am now seriously considering whether I want to remain part of this project.
Decline reason:
This request is too long. Please be more concise. — Sandstein 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nouse4aname, an independent admin will review the unblock request above. I've come to the conclusion that the block should have been for 24 hours, but to save your block log getting messy it will be better if I simply unblock after that time instead of resetting. My next point will be of no comfort to you, but it's that in a surprisingly high proportion of cases the person who reports bad behaviour to the admin noticeboards gets blocked for bad behaviour themselves. I believe this block to be entirely in line with the purpose and goals listed at the very top of the blocking policy. And I hope it will be effective. This edit warring has been going on for ever, it's becoming increasingly uncivil, and moreover, as you've detailed above, it's usually completely lame. I'll also quote again the relevant part from 3RR, "Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable". There is no shortage of regular editors on these articles who can fulfil this role, and no shortage of admins who would block USEDfan for 3RR. As for USEDfan, he is surfing close to a ban and he will find his blocks escalating sharply from this point, even when he doesn't technically break 3RR. The community is tiring of him, but that is not an excuse to join him in edit warring. Let the other editors on these articles also take note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
well i have to admit it is nice to see someone else get banned for once besides me considering i never did anything wrong. but anything... since im a nice guy and u are a fellow used fan i thought i wud let u go according the used myspace they are already in the studio, which is exciting news especailly since the last update we had was that they wud start recording in june, hopefully this means the will stick to their goal of recording it in a month and have it done b4 the 1 week internation tour, and if so that makes a sept/oct release seem extermly probale. :] USEDfan ( talk) 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You recently reviewed and rejected an unblock request by myself with the reason "This request is too long. Please be more concise". Quite frankly I find this attitude rude and entirely unhelpful. Nowhere is there any stated limit on how long an unblock request should be, and thus if I feel I need that much space to explain myself then I will use it. Please explain to me why you decided to decline this request, rather than just leave it for someone else to deal with. Regards Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I won't do anything until a decision has been made. Thanks for the heads up. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because you have well over 3000 edits you could apply to become an administrator if you haven't already. -- Chrismaster1 ( talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"I am taking a break from editing. Recent events have made me think again as to whether I can be bothered contributing to this project, not least the attitude of one admin who couldn't even be bothered to read an unblock request by myself, and declined it for "being too long". Lazy git."
^^that is ur first line, and sum1 keeps added metal genres to the used page and wont stop. USEDfan ( talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have started a thread here if you would like to add anything to what I've posted so far. Landon1980 ( talk) 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, the thing is a vandalism magnet. - mattbuck ( Talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really edit The Used very much, I would just pop in and read Usedfan's butchery of the English language and complete idiocy toward everything whenever I wanted a quick laugh. Lately I noticed a ton of conflict with their genre. A descriptive paragraph on the subject even came and went. On a few pages where there is a separate discography page, and on the band page there is a simple list of studio albums, I have commented that it is intended to be a section only for studio albums. A simple note that was often over looked, and still people posted non studio albums. The way I saw it in the case of The Used's genre, it could use a bigger note for a bigger issue. Perhaps I did get a little carried away, and had I found a way to post flashing neon lights I probably would have used them. Haha. A block of asterisks is about as close as I could get...
Good news about USEDfan, although I am sure he will be back under a new user. He's like a damn cockroach. I don't know if you noticed, but before his block he tried to accuse you of being a sockpuppet. [6] Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussion page for some possible amendments to the list.
The reason I put the back the track list on the Madina Lake songs is that from this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Infobox_Song) it says that it can be included in the infobox. I don't see why it shouldn't be included, it's certainly informative and makes the article more thorough. Unugunu ( talk) 03:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You've obviously got the "edit warning" too. I'd just like to say that the other sources that say Paramore is emo are edited by people just like you and me, and those edits are mostly based on opinion too. Paramore is a band which looks, acts, and dresses emo. But to actually be and emo band, your songs must reflect a certain tone. This tone usually portains to depression or depressing matters. I myself am a big Paramore fan, yet I don't find their tone at all emo. Emo is they may look emo, but just because they have the word "Misery" at the beginning of a song title, doesn't mean that they're music is emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnilc11 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You have an excellant point. And I could give in to that. But I'm not the surrendering type. I could surrender. Or I could reach into my pocket and pull out... http://feliciapatrickfob.buzznet.com/user/polls/63981/emo-band/ http://emohairstyle.blogspot.com/2008/04/emo-band-paramore.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/arts/music/30para.html http://superfm.com.pl/tag/not-emo/ Websites containing articles that are published, reliable, and not based on opinion... This seems to be an unbeatable battle, yet you have no opinion to back up that Paramore is emo. Only fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnilc11 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't explained why they fail the criteria. At any rate, I'll be able to expand them into B-class articles at some point, but I don't have the time to do so at the moment. I've got references from multiple books and websites for these articles. CloudNine ( talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you the facts. But it might take a will cause i have to discographies which are nominated and i'm working on the pink floyd discography, a-ha discography, bryan adams discography, the cranberries, the cranberries discography, lostprophets discography and lostprophets. So i have a lot of work to do. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
How come Go:Audio is allowed and Radio:ACTIVE isn't? Would we be able to write Radio:Active? -- Stacey talk to me 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Bad Habit (The Offspring song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bad Habit (The Offspring song), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Habit (The Offspring song). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw ( talk) 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice you have a history of edit warring, and have been blocked for it. I suggest you do not repeat your actions this time, or they may consequence in a block. MinYinChao ( talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, BRitic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRitic. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle ( talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've edited mewithoutYou to include lower case when the name falls mid-sentence or when it stands alone (such as at the top of the infobox and as part an album title). I left it capitalized as you had it when the word begins a sentence. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey man. I was just looking at the 2009 Six Nations Championship page, and it made me wonder about what to put as England's head coach. It's been a while since Martin Johnson was appointed as team manager and no further news seems to be forthcoming about the head coach, so perhaps Martin Johnson will be filling that role himself. What do you think? – Pee Jay 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on the Lady Danville article. ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nouse4aname, Carousel, was a bilnk-182 single? OffsBlink ( talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, I hate to tell you this again, but I already told you: there IS NOT a reason to redirect a song article just because it fails WP:MUSIC. If it should no longer be redirected, what should I do? Provide references or something? I know the article itself lacks references, that's probably why it fails WP:MUSIC. Alex ( talk) 14:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This ip, whose edits you recently reverted, is a sock of indef blocked sockpuppet User:AFI-PUNK. He often edits with different ip's in the 79.211 range and has been vandalizing for years. I suggest you revert any and all edits by this ip or similar ones. Thanks. Tim meh ! 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In what way are they not notable? As far as I can tell, they are perfectly notable. Erzsébet Báthory( talk| contr.) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The whole point is to keep it broad. Green Day is classified as both punk and alternative rock. Given pop punk is a subgenre of punk, it's best to just list punk and alt-rock. I'm not saying that they're not pop punk. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to delete all links to the SDRE singles' articles that I created and you deleted? Why not delete all their albums too? None of them were notable and 3 of them never had any singles with videos to play on MTV! :D Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place for everyone. Neon Flow ( talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I really think that the SDRE singles you deleted were notable.
1 - There's this point in WP:MUSIC: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."
2 - Sunny Day Real Estate are notable, otherwise you can perfectly delete their page. They meet some of the points in notability for bands.
3 - Those singles were official - not bootlegs, not promos, nothing. They were released on SubPop, which I think is a sufficient notable label.
So, if you think you can just delete other people's work without not so much reason to do that, think twice.
The way you deleted those pages without any further notification is considered disrespectful for everyone that created them and everyone that has contributed for their expansion during the last few months. A viable alternative could have consisted in adding a template that would notify users to add information and sources. That would be a better way to improve the quality of Wikipedia, by building a thorough base of information, without any unconstructive deletions in the process. BucketOfChicken ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering in what way this article failed WP:MUSIC and deserves a redirect. Orfen T • C 01:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my (apparently) mistaken reverts to the un-capitalized version of this article. Wikipedia's policy in this regard is asinine. The name of the album is 'qhnnnl' [7], and, in my opinion, should not be rendered any other way. However, as WP policy does not allow any deviancy from the 'capitalize anything and everything' policy, I will cease editing the article to reflect the actual name.
-- Columba livia ( talk) 01:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note! Really appreciated. And, actually, yes, "1995-present (hiatus)" is a pretty good compromise. Have you suggested it on the FF talk? Thanks again! Utan Vax ( talk) 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to the page dredg were erroneous. The band's name is dredg. Not Dredge. Nowhere in there does it state that a name that is lowercase must be capitalized. It even says they're guidelines, not rules (you know, for when odd situations like this come up?) The page has stood as dredg since '05, so obviously the admins thought it was fine. "...though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - proper names page. So please, leave it as is, and save us both some trouble. PEiP ( talk) 05:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the most important WP is WP:UCS. Take that as you will. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so I'd like to get mediation. I posted a request for editor assistance to get input on this. PEiP ( talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just believe that dredg should remain lowercase, and that the policies don't explicitly disagree. If it's found that I'm wrong, I'll leave it as is and not start an edit war of any type. PEiP ( talk) 05:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The response I got from the editor assistance can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Capitalization_dispute Looks like I was half right. There's no specific guideline. I'm going to follow his advice and open discussion to try to reach consensus. Drop me a comment if you need to talk about anything. PEiP ( talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Eh, I don't really care. He posted his comment on the wrong page (supposedly), so I responded to it. Whether he sees it or not, I care not. He has already revealed to many other editors what kind of user he is (no, I am not saying all his edits are bad or that he is a horrible person). You can choose to believe whoever you want, it's not my problem. Just the fact that I got nominated for adminship by a user that both me and twsx respect greatly should tell you something (and no, not that he made a mistake). Sure I'm opinionated about certain things, but the majority of my edits are to protect and better wikipedia through vandal reversion/warning/reporting and adding helpful refs/sources/info to articles. I'm not saying twsx doesn't do these things either (I really wouldn't know, I do not stalk his edits and we mostly edit different things) but I'm just saying what kind of user I am. I'll let that speak for itself. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I was unable to file the report myself. Some stuff came up, and I'm only now getting back to Wikipedia. But you did a good job for your first try. It looks great for now. Oh yeah, and the reason I posted about the sockpuppetry on your talk page is because I thought you were an administrator <_< Oh well, things worked out ok. Cheers. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw that, and I remember reverting one of his/her edits recently. I didn't know that their question had anything to do with the on-going content dispute they have, and I KNEW you 3 aren't socks of each other. :) Wildthing61476 ( talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. 82.38.65.47 has once again been changing the genres of band/album/song articles. I saw you gave him a final warning about it, and I thought you'd like to know about his edits and maybe report him to WP:AIV or something. Thanks. Tim meh ! 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Please can you explain the articles that you have recently converted to redirects? LittleOldMe ( talk) 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, saw that on RC Patrol and figured it was a bit of a vandalism that needed to be cleared. Wildthing61476 ( talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you moved the page. Thanks for helping. I just thought there was probably another article of the same name of so I kept the title. But thanks. Are you personlly interested in Thy Serpent? JazzlineB ( talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
are u talking about, ur the one who completly changes pages without premission, and isnt it past ur bed time? USEDfan ( talk) 09:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I said to User:Londo06, it is common practice on WP:FOOTY not to name leagues' articles after their sponsored titles. For example, the article is Premier League, not Barclays Premier League. I just thought this was common practice on Wikipedia. Regardless, there are redirects from the sponsored names to the current names, so nothing is affected. – Pee Jay 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Used#Genre_paragrah_settlement
please go there and leave a comment, i think ur version migh tbe th eresolution. USEDfan ( talk) 02:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, news agencies like the BBC and Sky have to pay a fee to the Premier League in order to publish fixtures and live scores. Obviously the same restrictions do not apply to final results, but I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to display live Premier League scores. – Pee Jay 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, sorry it's taken so long to get back to you, I don't get on here as often as I'd like. My decision regarding this was (to memory) based on there being no discography in the deleted version. I felt the discography tipped the balance and (my personal acid test) I could find the albums on Amazon. Basically I could see potential in the article. It seems since then it has survived an AfD and grown a lot. I'd only speedily delete an article under the recreation of deleted material criterion if it was a duplicate (or near duplicate) of what was deleted before. Even then I'd look to see if I agreed with the original reason for deletion. I hope this makes my position clearer. Thanks, Malla nox 21:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
once u complete a paragraph for the used discovery, then add it in, dont do half ass work cause it looks and osunds bad, once u complete the paragaph put it in and then ill make all the corrections but dont just put a half apragraph in the wikipeida. USEDfan ( talk) 21:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You removed the following - "Due to technical issues in the studio, the band has been forced to cancel their European festival dates in order to ensure that the album is released this year." - because it was unsourced. Fair enough. But the only source is a myspace blog, and I know that Wikipedia doesn't accept myspace blogs as references. So what to do? U-Mos ( talk) 16:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
if i remember correctly u are a 25 year old sucesful well educated man, and u have nothing better in life then to worry about a tiny little - ..*shakes head in amazment* also if we are gona follow that it says only studio albums shud be in the chronicalongal thingy or w/e its called. USEDfan ( talk) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Yeah the chronicalongal thingy lol. Landon1980 ( talk) 21:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
and how come u didnt chang eit to jus the studio albums just like the rule said it shud, u only follow what u like. USEDfan ( talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You've been blocked for edit warring. See this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nouse4aname ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was not edit warring. I was restoring articles to a format that has been agreed upon by consensus here and here. The user provided no valid reasons for their edits, whereas I provided sufficient information, links etc to them. Furthermore, the revert war ceased a while ago, and this block seems to be punishment rather than prevention
Decline reason:
That's not a valid exception to 3RR. — Wikiacc ( ¶) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nouse4aname ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
How about the fact that this block is clearly punishment and not to prevent more reverting
Decline reason:
As I noted here, blocks for edit warring seem perfectly appropriate for both accounts. WP:3RR: Do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. For future issues, please seek dispute resolution. — Scien tizzle 21:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nouse4aname ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
OK, so it seems that no one is willing to directly respond to my question. The last mainspace revert I made was at 21:12 (see [1] and [2]). Nearly one hour later I was blocked; see here [3]. Now, considering the reverts had ceased an hour before this block, please explain to me how this block is preventative rather than simple punishment, which I feel is in direct opposition to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I subsequently was engaged in a revert war on my own talk page, in which I was removing a 3RR warning. I appealed for help to deal with this situation [4], and it seems that as a result of asking for help, I was subsequently blocked. Hardly encouragement to seek admin intervention in future, is it? Now, on to the reasoning behind the "edit wars". Firstly, this user has been extremely disruptive for the past several months, insisting that his view is correct and that everyone else is wrong [5]. Essentially there were two things that I was reverting, which I felt I was entirely right in doing. Firstly was the addition of a "-" to the "last album/last single" field of infoboxes in the articles Demos from the Basement and A Box Full of Sharp Objects. As agreed here and here, the standard of formatting is to leave this field blank. This allows for a consistent, and more professional style throughout wikipedia. I was simply trying to maintain this, and felt that reverting the addition of the "-" was justified - what possible argument could there be to include it in these articles but not the thousands of others? The second was adding an unnamed, unlinked "TBA (2008)" to the most recent album/single infoboxes of Shallow Believer and Paralyzed (song). As neither song nor album has been released, are still untitled, may not even be out this year, let alone the fact that they do not have articles, according to the same formatting styles linked above, these fields should also be left blank, at least until an article is created. Again, what possible argument could there be to include this when such additions are regularly removed from other articles without argument. Thus I removed this also. I clearly explained to the user why I was making the edits described above, and considering that I felt I had a large consensus behind me, I felt entirely justified in reverting his edits, which I felt were disruptive and bordering on vandalism. This user was simply displaying the same stubborn, uncooperative attitude that he has become known for. It is not just myself that has reverted his edits, several other editors have been involved too. I am rather offended at how I have been treated here, and am somewhat disappointed at the complete lack of support that I have been shown when dealing with an obviously disruptive editor. I admit that I should not have continued reverting his edits, however I could see no logic for what he was doing, and he himself gave no valid reason for his edits, whereas I clearly explained, all of mine. I have been a contributor for over a year, and have made over 10,000 positive edits to wikipedia, however I am now seriously considering whether I want to remain part of this project.
Decline reason:
This request is too long. Please be more concise. — Sandstein 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Nouse4aname, an independent admin will review the unblock request above. I've come to the conclusion that the block should have been for 24 hours, but to save your block log getting messy it will be better if I simply unblock after that time instead of resetting. My next point will be of no comfort to you, but it's that in a surprisingly high proportion of cases the person who reports bad behaviour to the admin noticeboards gets blocked for bad behaviour themselves. I believe this block to be entirely in line with the purpose and goals listed at the very top of the blocking policy. And I hope it will be effective. This edit warring has been going on for ever, it's becoming increasingly uncivil, and moreover, as you've detailed above, it's usually completely lame. I'll also quote again the relevant part from 3RR, "Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others. If an action really requires reversion, some other editor will probably do it — and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which course of action is preferable". There is no shortage of regular editors on these articles who can fulfil this role, and no shortage of admins who would block USEDfan for 3RR. As for USEDfan, he is surfing close to a ban and he will find his blocks escalating sharply from this point, even when he doesn't technically break 3RR. The community is tiring of him, but that is not an excuse to join him in edit warring. Let the other editors on these articles also take note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
well i have to admit it is nice to see someone else get banned for once besides me considering i never did anything wrong. but anything... since im a nice guy and u are a fellow used fan i thought i wud let u go according the used myspace they are already in the studio, which is exciting news especailly since the last update we had was that they wud start recording in june, hopefully this means the will stick to their goal of recording it in a month and have it done b4 the 1 week internation tour, and if so that makes a sept/oct release seem extermly probale. :] USEDfan ( talk) 07:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You recently reviewed and rejected an unblock request by myself with the reason "This request is too long. Please be more concise". Quite frankly I find this attitude rude and entirely unhelpful. Nowhere is there any stated limit on how long an unblock request should be, and thus if I feel I need that much space to explain myself then I will use it. Please explain to me why you decided to decline this request, rather than just leave it for someone else to deal with. Regards Nouse4aname ( talk) 08:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I won't do anything until a decision has been made. Thanks for the heads up. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Because you have well over 3000 edits you could apply to become an administrator if you haven't already. -- Chrismaster1 ( talk) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"I am taking a break from editing. Recent events have made me think again as to whether I can be bothered contributing to this project, not least the attitude of one admin who couldn't even be bothered to read an unblock request by myself, and declined it for "being too long". Lazy git."
^^that is ur first line, and sum1 keeps added metal genres to the used page and wont stop. USEDfan ( talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have started a thread here if you would like to add anything to what I've posted so far. Landon1980 ( talk) 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, the thing is a vandalism magnet. - mattbuck ( Talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really edit The Used very much, I would just pop in and read Usedfan's butchery of the English language and complete idiocy toward everything whenever I wanted a quick laugh. Lately I noticed a ton of conflict with their genre. A descriptive paragraph on the subject even came and went. On a few pages where there is a separate discography page, and on the band page there is a simple list of studio albums, I have commented that it is intended to be a section only for studio albums. A simple note that was often over looked, and still people posted non studio albums. The way I saw it in the case of The Used's genre, it could use a bigger note for a bigger issue. Perhaps I did get a little carried away, and had I found a way to post flashing neon lights I probably would have used them. Haha. A block of asterisks is about as close as I could get...
Good news about USEDfan, although I am sure he will be back under a new user. He's like a damn cockroach. I don't know if you noticed, but before his block he tried to accuse you of being a sockpuppet. [6] Fezmar9 ( talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussion page for some possible amendments to the list.
The reason I put the back the track list on the Madina Lake songs is that from this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs#Infobox_Song) it says that it can be included in the infobox. I don't see why it shouldn't be included, it's certainly informative and makes the article more thorough. Unugunu ( talk) 03:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You've obviously got the "edit warning" too. I'd just like to say that the other sources that say Paramore is emo are edited by people just like you and me, and those edits are mostly based on opinion too. Paramore is a band which looks, acts, and dresses emo. But to actually be and emo band, your songs must reflect a certain tone. This tone usually portains to depression or depressing matters. I myself am a big Paramore fan, yet I don't find their tone at all emo. Emo is they may look emo, but just because they have the word "Misery" at the beginning of a song title, doesn't mean that they're music is emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnilc11 ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You have an excellant point. And I could give in to that. But I'm not the surrendering type. I could surrender. Or I could reach into my pocket and pull out... http://feliciapatrickfob.buzznet.com/user/polls/63981/emo-band/ http://emohairstyle.blogspot.com/2008/04/emo-band-paramore.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/arts/music/30para.html http://superfm.com.pl/tag/not-emo/ Websites containing articles that are published, reliable, and not based on opinion... This seems to be an unbeatable battle, yet you have no opinion to back up that Paramore is emo. Only fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnilc11 ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't explained why they fail the criteria. At any rate, I'll be able to expand them into B-class articles at some point, but I don't have the time to do so at the moment. I've got references from multiple books and websites for these articles. CloudNine ( talk) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you the facts. But it might take a will cause i have to discographies which are nominated and i'm working on the pink floyd discography, a-ha discography, bryan adams discography, the cranberries, the cranberries discography, lostprophets discography and lostprophets. So i have a lot of work to do. -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 12:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
How come Go:Audio is allowed and Radio:ACTIVE isn't? Would we be able to write Radio:Active? -- Stacey talk to me 15:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Bad Habit (The Offspring song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Bad Habit (The Offspring song), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Habit (The Offspring song). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mdsummermsw ( talk) 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I notice you have a history of edit warring, and have been blocked for it. I suggest you do not repeat your actions this time, or they may consequence in a block. MinYinChao ( talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, BRitic, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRitic. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Stifle ( talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've edited mewithoutYou to include lower case when the name falls mid-sentence or when it stands alone (such as at the top of the infobox and as part an album title). I left it capitalized as you had it when the word begins a sentence. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey man. I was just looking at the 2009 Six Nations Championship page, and it made me wonder about what to put as England's head coach. It's been a while since Martin Johnson was appointed as team manager and no further news seems to be forthcoming about the head coach, so perhaps Martin Johnson will be filling that role himself. What do you think? – Pee Jay 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! -- Be Black Hole Sun ( talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your edit on the Lady Danville article. ŁittleÄlien¹8² ( talk\ contribs) 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nouse4aname, Carousel, was a bilnk-182 single? OffsBlink ( talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Look, I hate to tell you this again, but I already told you: there IS NOT a reason to redirect a song article just because it fails WP:MUSIC. If it should no longer be redirected, what should I do? Provide references or something? I know the article itself lacks references, that's probably why it fails WP:MUSIC. Alex ( talk) 14:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
This ip, whose edits you recently reverted, is a sock of indef blocked sockpuppet User:AFI-PUNK. He often edits with different ip's in the 79.211 range and has been vandalizing for years. I suggest you revert any and all edits by this ip or similar ones. Thanks. Tim meh ! 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
In what way are they not notable? As far as I can tell, they are perfectly notable. Erzsébet Báthory( talk| contr.) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The whole point is to keep it broad. Green Day is classified as both punk and alternative rock. Given pop punk is a subgenre of punk, it's best to just list punk and alt-rock. I'm not saying that they're not pop punk. WesleyDodds ( talk) 09:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to delete all links to the SDRE singles' articles that I created and you deleted? Why not delete all their albums too? None of them were notable and 3 of them never had any singles with videos to play on MTV! :D Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place for everyone. Neon Flow ( talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I really think that the SDRE singles you deleted were notable.
1 - There's this point in WP:MUSIC: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."
2 - Sunny Day Real Estate are notable, otherwise you can perfectly delete their page. They meet some of the points in notability for bands.
3 - Those singles were official - not bootlegs, not promos, nothing. They were released on SubPop, which I think is a sufficient notable label.
So, if you think you can just delete other people's work without not so much reason to do that, think twice.
The way you deleted those pages without any further notification is considered disrespectful for everyone that created them and everyone that has contributed for their expansion during the last few months. A viable alternative could have consisted in adding a template that would notify users to add information and sources. That would be a better way to improve the quality of Wikipedia, by building a thorough base of information, without any unconstructive deletions in the process. BucketOfChicken ( talk) 00:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering in what way this article failed WP:MUSIC and deserves a redirect. Orfen T • C 01:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my (apparently) mistaken reverts to the un-capitalized version of this article. Wikipedia's policy in this regard is asinine. The name of the album is 'qhnnnl' [7], and, in my opinion, should not be rendered any other way. However, as WP policy does not allow any deviancy from the 'capitalize anything and everything' policy, I will cease editing the article to reflect the actual name.
-- Columba livia ( talk) 01:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note! Really appreciated. And, actually, yes, "1995-present (hiatus)" is a pretty good compromise. Have you suggested it on the FF talk? Thanks again! Utan Vax ( talk) 11:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Your edits to the page dredg were erroneous. The band's name is dredg. Not Dredge. Nowhere in there does it state that a name that is lowercase must be capitalized. It even says they're guidelines, not rules (you know, for when odd situations like this come up?) The page has stood as dredg since '05, so obviously the admins thought it was fine. "...though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - proper names page. So please, leave it as is, and save us both some trouble. PEiP ( talk) 05:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the most important WP is WP:UCS. Take that as you will. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so I'd like to get mediation. I posted a request for editor assistance to get input on this. PEiP ( talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just believe that dredg should remain lowercase, and that the policies don't explicitly disagree. If it's found that I'm wrong, I'll leave it as is and not start an edit war of any type. PEiP ( talk) 05:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The response I got from the editor assistance can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Capitalization_dispute Looks like I was half right. There's no specific guideline. I'm going to follow his advice and open discussion to try to reach consensus. Drop me a comment if you need to talk about anything. PEiP ( talk) 20:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |