Talk page archive

Helllo Wiki libs. You appear to be edit warring to restore information added by Prophaniti, who is now blocked for 3RR. (I heard about you via User talk:EdJohnston#Hed PE). This is curious, and I started wondering if you were a sock of Prophaniti, but now I see you have a long record here. Please join Talk:Hed PE and explain the logic of your edits. Your recent contributions seem to contain a huge proportion of reverts, which tends to make admins nervous. (That makes them think that 'edit warrior' is a description that fits). Your last 50 contributions don't include any comments on article Talk pages. My apologies if there is a reasonable explanation for your recent editing pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Feel free.

Thanks for your extremely thorough response! I really don't consider you a sock, I was just trying to figure out if anything could be done about the genre wars on certain music articles. Obviously that's a large problem to solve. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes are not vandalism in any form or fashion, talk about not assuming good faith. Unexplained blanking of sourced material can be considered vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking a verifiable reference from a reliable source is vandalism. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to you that is. Landon1980 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the law. ;( The Real Libs-speak politely 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOl Ok I see, I don't want to get locked up so I'll straighten my act up :). I would like to point out one thing to you though: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism WP:VANDALISM." I have only the best intentions, I may be wrong about this. I'm not saying offline references can never be used; I just don't see how we as a project can expect other editors to have to run out and buy a book just to verify something. What if they can't afford to buy a book. The content is supposed to be easily verifiable. To me dressing the kids, fueling up the car, and running down town to the bookstore is a little much to ask. Especially when the said content is being introduced by someone as disruptive as Prophaniti. Landon1980 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike Mr Prophaniti for the most part as I have seen attempts by him to regress pages that are near-FA because his personal opinion is that an FA status page means nothing. That being said he has correctly added sources for content that is, even without sources, valid text. There are negative connotations to the term that he is trying to add to the article in question. And teenybopper fanboys will type to the last fingernail to try and remove it because they would prefer to portray the encyclopedia page as their own personal fanpage. Negative connotations or not... it doesn't negate the truth of them. There is nothing disruptive there. Glam metal used to be a brazen insult 25 years ago. Now its an era looked back on in fondness. 20 years from now nu-metal will be an almost forgotten footnote. But when it comes up in the press... likely due to some boneheaded retro revival... the press will say... "new band X... shows a similar style to pioneering nu-metal bands like Korn and Deftones and Slipknot". Whether that is accurate or not in the eyes of the fanboys doesn't matter... thats just how it is... and that is how it will be. When I was a young kid there were these frightening heavy metal acts that were warping peoples minds.... acts like Jimi Hendrix, Cream and the Jeff Beck Group. That was "heavy" music... no music will ever reach those heights of "heavy." Times change. Referenced content from reliable sources is like concrete. There is only one way to get rid of it. If someone has 3 cites saying "yellow".... someone else has to come up with 6 cites saying "red". You can only negate a reliable reference.... with twice as many reliable references. Anything else is just pov. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert Music_from_"The_Elder" ? Do you even know anything about music. Methinks you need to learn to be a little less quick to revert edits when you know nothing about the subject. Jcam (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa... you've awoken a sleeping dragon. Utan Vax (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy (the one you showed me from before) needs some serious shepherding, btw Libs. He's one of those people who have POV genre crusades ("MEGADEATH ARE NOT FUCKING HARD ROCK" - Ha... check out his userpage). I need to write an essay about this... seriously... WP:GENRE... Hmm... Utan Vax (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We must AGF because he's only 11. Same with the Music from the Elder dweeb. :D The Real Libs-speak politely 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiousity, why did you remove the image from the Max Webster page? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a violation of the WP:FAIR policy. Album covers are only fair-use in the article about the album the cover is sourced from. I specified that in my edit summary along with the link to the policy. It can't be used anywhwere else. The template rules also specify that only a free-use image can be used in the box. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I saw the edit summary, but it just said that the image was a violation of the policy; it didn't say why. Thanks for the explanation. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

check this out Enigma ^message 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling a list here guys. Utan Vax (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is what I'm doing any different that the other user in the argument? I just mathematically happened to get in trouble because I kept changing his errors. I didn't "troll" anything. It's not very "civil" to throw me on your blacklist.-MetalKommandant (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't thrown. You walk into it all on your own. When 1 editor (you) reverts the edits of many... you are a pov pusher who is ignoring consensus. Of all the edits you've made to Wikipedia.... 90% have been reverted. That's usually a sign to step back and re-think your erroneous thought plan. You don't appear to have any knowledge of the subjects you are editing. Perhaps when the teacher gives you your morning recess you should spend your time doing some research rather than going out to the playground and climbing on the monkey bars. And if you require any help understanding Wikipedia policy let me know and I will ask a patient/motherly editor to assist you. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I was changing it back to the consensus, what had been there before. This was something new that was thrown in without any basis at all. Yes, I was mathematically at fault because I went past the edit number, alright? I'm just reflecting what the information in those articles says about the album or band, which are the genres which were up there before. I have the knowledge of the material I'm putting in, it's right there in the article that I'm using for basis.

You're telling me that I don't have information, alright? Where is his? All of the original genre additions that were made were all at once with no comment on the history about why this being put in, where is the verification. Yes, I'm not most sensible person in the world, condescend me like a little kid all you want, but unless you look at what I'm seeing on these articles, what this user is putting in does not match what the page says about it... -MetalKommandant (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^These are civil posts right above me. I'm trying to do this your way to help you understand; it's what you suggested. "Civility." "No personal attacks." I'm telling the truth here. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question... what are you trying to have a conversation with yourself on other talk pages... using profanity/personal attacks/whiny crybaby/I don't care about consensus posts? The Real Libs-speak politely 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... where are the citations for the information I'm trying to rightfully take down. You're still being biased. "Whining." I think you're whining about the "personal attacks" and "profanity." Whoop-de-doo. People are profane in life, that's pretty basic if you ever go outside. To me, it sounds like you're whining because I'm challenging your misusage of power.

But, anyhow, if you don't follow consensus, and you don't have citations on these pages on the Megadeth articles, where is your justification for saying that the whole band and every album but "Risk" is hard rock? That's what I'm asking. You're not being very neutral in this argument; stop dodging my main points and address them, please. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus isn't citations... its a majority of editors doing the same edits or agreeing to the same edit content. You are one person who iis using numerous sockpuppets to try and push your POV. But its still just you... one person...no matter how many bogus accounts you create or how many IPs you try and use. But every time you try an edit... it gets reverted by someone else... always someone different. Sometimes its an American, sometimes it's a Canadian, sometimes its someone from England, someone from New Zealand, someone from Australia, someone from Wales... etc. DNS searches don't lie. They pinpoint exactly where these edits come from. You, 1 person, are reverted by many. That is consensus on Wikipedia. And, unfortunately for you, it means you lose. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, forget consensus then, since I see we're changing the rules again. What about a citation. Where's that at? I'm still not seeing a citation and a reliable source to go to where it says "hard rock" on these pages. There isn't one or any on the pages that were vandalized by this unsupportable addition. I've seen on the Death Magnetic pages that you actually support your argument very well... you're not doing that here, you're just giving me the finger and going on your merry way.-MetalKommandant (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A citation isn't needed because consensus wins on Wikipedia. And the pages don't appear to be vandalised. An opinion that is different from your personal opinion isn't vandalism. Read WP:VAN. Adding hard rock to Megadeth page isn't stretching any truths as it pretty much describes a large bulk of their output over the past 16 years. So adding it isn't vandalism. If someone were to add opera or bluegrass... that would be vandalism. There is a large edit count in support of that particular genre being added to those pages. So a consensus has been set by an overwhelming edit history. And going against consensus is classed as destructive editing and is treated the same as vandalism... go against consensus and you will still be blocked. Creating sockpuppets to try and create a false consensus is also treated as vandalism and will result in you being blocked and all your sockpuppet acounts being blocked as well. If you found 6 or 8 citations from sources that meet the strict criteria of WP:RS (and websites are the last place to look) that specifically said "Megadeth are not a hard rock band"... in those exact words... then you could put an argument forth because you would have the refs to back it up But, again, those refs have to be from reliable sources not web based sources and they have to number in the many to outweigh the consensus. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Risk was both a critical and commercial failure, and led to a backlash from many longtime fans. Although recent Megadeth albums had incorporated mainstream rock elements alongside a more traditional heavy metal sound, Risk was virtually devoid of metal, featuring instead dance, electronica, and disco influences." (from the Megadeth page) If we're going to say they're hard rock, then there's going to need to be an overhaul of the actual articles here. "Traditional heavy metal" is not hard rock. If so, then somebody should go to the pages like Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, and Judas Priest and add hard rock to every album. Risk was the only commerical rock album, and it even says that on the pages. Countdown through Cryptic was traditional, slow-downed metal, it says that among the articles, and on The World Needs a Hero (as well as all post-Risk albums) it says that the album was more of a return to the regular style of Megadeth, hence, thrash and heavy metal. My proof is right here on this site. One conceptual album is not "the bulk of their output." If you're going to label the more mainstream albums of Megadeth as hard rock, then Metallica (album), St. Anger, and Death Magentic will need those tabs as well for your horrible consistency... If United Abominations is "hard rock" and Death Magnetic doesn't have that on it's page, then you need to clean out your ears.

"Destructive editing." I'm just reflecting what it says on the Megadeth's articles. To someone trying to research the band, they will think that every Megadeth album in the past 16 years has the same type of music as Risk did. That's false. Very false. There is a big difference between "Ashes In Your Mouth" and "Wanderlust", as well as "Return to Hangar" and "I'll Be There", for example.-MetalKommandant (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion/consensus for Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath and Judas Priest was that it 'could' be there but the preferred choice was to leave it out. We discussed that 3 years ago. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a check on these bands?

• Cryptic Fate
• Powersurge (band)

A quick look on those pages made me feel that they could be possibly NN. There maybe tons of bands like these in India which are not mentioned on the thrash list. Cheers! Welt^anschaunng 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Fate was already moninated for AfD and the result was keep.(for some reason?). Powersurge was an article created by GlassCobra... who is an Administrator. Without digging into it too deep I would hope that, of anyone here, an administrator was know what an NN is :D. And my AGF is that he does. I don't see anything particularly notable. But who am I? You could prod it just to see if anyone bites. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version of Powersurge that I created seemed pretty notable to me, but feel free to take it to AfD. When you saw it, Weltanschaunng, the article had been hijacked by an IP editor to feature a Bangladeshi band with the same name. I have reverted the changes and created an article for that band at Powersurge (Bangladeshi band). Please feel free to take that one to AfD as well if deemed necessary. GlassCobra 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really look at the page... just the origin and figured that it was a keeper. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just as subject to the rules as anyone else, of course. Truth be told, I created both those articles as results of article hijacks; the Bangladeshi band I already spoke of, but the American Powersurge band was created from a hijack of the main Powersurge article. If you or Weltanschaunng feel that either of them are non-notable, please do take them to AfD. No hard feelings, I promise. GlassCobra 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wiki links, I reviewed the guidelines at WP:DATE that you used in modifying Stratovarius. Please be aware that other editors have questioned the usage of non-linked dates, so you might want to spend less time enforcing that particular guideline until that's all settled out. I'm going to follow my own advice and not go out of my way to link them when editing articles for the moment. Cheers! --otherlleft (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond WP:DATE... music related pages lean heavily on the the "do not link years lacking specific dates." A good practice to follow in order to keep things consistent. I predict that, if we follow these simple guidelines we will eventually have them all looking good around... say.... hmmm... '20never' :-)... but at least we tried. :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please refrain from reverting and therefore removing referenced text. You have previously edit warred on this article/point and you had no basis for these edits then either as there is already a reference in place, which you repeatedly choose to ignore. Your reasoning being "Knopfler is born in Scotland. Therefore he is Scottish. Pretty simple" is complete incorrect, as per the reference in place.

92.12.207.220 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) No, I am right and you are wrong. I am always right. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck my oar in and kept it to the known facts - he was born in Scotland and self-identifies as "English".--Alf ^melmac 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Alf wanders off muttering about how attachment based all this identification of the self by name, country and all is and hopes it won't be a hindrance to their paths to enlightenment. [reply]

Are you English or British? :D The Real Libs-speak politely 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deny everything. My passport says I'm British - I was born in England though I (like a lot) care to distance myself from attaching the nationality to England or Britain whenever possible. I sometimes have difficulty believing this is my home planet, but that's for another day...--Alf ^melmac 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at user east718's talk page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you always trying to get me blocked? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be doing that on your own without anyone's help. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude your goin around on different pages and saying i have sockpuppets and your trying to get people to block me. And i was right about the who project you even agreed "The project is active again", it was unactive when i made it into a taskforce. Another question why, you did't cear about that project before i came along. This goes to show that your trying to make problems for me. So stop. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never join any projects officially. Everyone knows I support them though thats why so many people ask me for advice when it comes to them. But I do have a certain fondness for the TW project (it was my idea) and since other editors want to preserve it I might as well clan up to it. Makes sense seeing as how I was the one who recommended to the user who created it... to go ahead and create it in the first place. A year later I had that same user's IP blocked after he pissed me off by edit warring. But it was still a good idea. There are a couple of admins who are active on articles related to it. But they've never actually joined the project. That's just how some projects work. Unilateral dissolution of anything on Wikipedia without discussion or consensus is never the way. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it was marked inactive, thats why i did what i did. But not a big deal anyway. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marked inactive is one thing. But when that occurs whoever tagged it should have went around to all the project members and told them of the tag. Which didn't happen. There are other projects with members who are fiercely editing at the articles tagged by their project.... but never ever look at the actual project page itself. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See now i get it, this is much more productive. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for violating the 3RR rule and edit warring for 48 hours. I believe such is an automatic response for simple 3RR violation. Thanks for your assistance. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the Grace Under Pressure edits. They had references.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distructive edits rather than constructive edits. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think they were destructive. The edits were accurate and were properly cited. (At least I think so).--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh??? You tampered with the Allmusic link, you vandalised the review template you violated WP:NPOV, you ignored WP:MOS, You added false information(vandalism) by changeing the correct "C-clamp" to the incorrect "vice grip" do you even know what either of those 2 terms mean? You added an entire cruft/original research/copyvio paragraph using a fansite as a source (read WP:V/WP:RS. Shall I go on listing the rules and policies all you edits ignore? I thought it was funny when you created your RedPenofDicks sockpuppet account. But your attempt at real editing is not funny and 95% of them have to be reverted. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What in the blue blazes are you talking about?!?!?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wiki_libs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humorous. I will admit to be wrong on one thing and I do apologise for one factual exaggeration... it's not really 95%.... it's only 70%(approx.). I've been saying it for 4 years/50000+ edits... RCUs are a pain in the a**. Some accounts are so abusive that they require the pain... and then there are those that can just be ignored. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the edit warring with User:Be Black Hole Sun, so I can not join this discussion (I think). Sorry. My problem is that it is adding the template rock music in articles of heavy metal bands (mainly those which gained featured status). Cannibaloki 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that. There are many users of the WP:METAL crew who are constantly removing his template due to the overkill factor. He has also templated (numerous times bordering on edit warring) many of the pages covered by the Wiki-alternative rock Project. Again... most of his work has been reverted by members of that project. Whether your opinion is positive pr negative it doesn't matter. That is what the admins involved need to know. Does the heaps of negative outweigh the bounds of positive. Lots of editors with an abundance of positive edits have still been blocked because the good did not outweigh the bad. The important thing is that all the sides are heard. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]