Open main menu

Hello there!Edit

Got a question about my edits, or yours? Need PR or FAC suggestions? Go ahead, make a new section. I don't do GA reviews unless a review of something is offered in return; any others I do are solely my prerogative. You can see any nominations or discussions I have open at the bottom of this page.

"Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers." ~dannymusiceditor's Dad

NOTE: If I don't respond to a talk message, either here or another talk page you've messaged me on, within 48 hours, you have my explicit permission to send me a direct message on Discord. My tag is No-Name Horse#1378. This, of course, excludes if I say I'm not around (such as a Wikibreak) unless it is urgent. Not to worry, that's not the case at the moment. dannymusiceditor oops 00:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


Public Enemy singles datesEdit

There is a citation to Martin C. Strong's discography book in the singles template of each article you have edited; see here, for example. The dates are based on that reference. Dan56 (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh. That's creative. I did not expect or see it there. Thank you for clarifying. dannymusiceditor oops 18:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Daft Punk pageEdit

I don't really understand what I did wrong on the Daft Punk page. Not only was everything that I listed true, but I included a source. I don't see what is "against Wikipedia policy" or why it is necessary to remove what I did, or even why its necessary to put it on the talk page when it's not controversial. I am merely adding more information. Also, I directly copied some of it from related pages. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad to explain. The source you added was indeed reliable, but a source describing one album as a genre and not the group or multiple albums as a whole generally doesn't fly. We can include it in the article, but not all the way up there. I can see you tried to add even more clarity on that later in the article, but I'll get to that.
I reverted the addition of this statement:
Never mind that you didn't put quotemarks on the song (as is required on English Wikipedia). The biggest issue is that this has to be sourced too, not just personal observation about subjective material as you have obviously done here. That is a big no-no on Wikipedia.
The same can be said about this. I appreciate your attempt to help, but these edits are actually unconstructive and thus you have been reverted.
And finally, we can add something about this dance-rock chapter of Daft Punk's career, but we need to have it clearly sourced. Preferably it would be done in the musical style section. Might I suggest pulling something from the album's article itself, or using the one you used earlier in an appropriate location? (Or both, if it was in fact from the album article in the first place?)
Glad I could chat with you, and I'd be glad to answer any further questions. Have a nice night. dannymusiceditor oops 05:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I did say in the Human After All section that it specifically was a dance-rock style album, and yet it was removed anyway. In fact, I would personally call it more of an electronic rock album to be broader, but since the source that I found said it was a dance-rock album, I refrained myself from saying it was electronic rock.
Also, the second quote from myself was directly copied from the Human After All Wikipedia page which did not use a source for that specific sentence let alone the entire paragraph. I do not really see the need for listing a source for some of the most obvious aspects. Sure, the whole glam metal part may have been crossing the line (even though the entire point was to emphasize Discovery's 70s' and 80s' influences), but the heavy use of guitars in Human After All or even the guitar solos in Discovery is extremely obvious to anyone listening to them and yet an important aspect when comparing the albums and observing how their style of music evolves. Same with the use of the bass guitar in Homework.
I do believe that it is important to add dance-rock and other mentions of their use of strings because I think people overlook the fact that Daft Punk is not 100% electronic but does, in fact, use traditional string instruments in many of their songs, or even samples that involve those instruments. So implying that throughout the article is indeed constructive because it helps readers understand the style of their music as opposed to pure electronic artists like say deadmau5 for example. The whole glam metal part, I admit, not as much. As for the quotations, that's a simple fix.
I will try to look out for more sources in the future (despite how difficult it is to come by), however, for now, I believe most of what I added was fairly obvious yet necessary to mention. At the very least, I think my second quote should be kept. AngevinKnight1154 (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand that this is important to recognize, but if nobody reliably covered this on the Internet, there's nothing we can do except search through books, magazines, maybe. Sometimes money has to be spent to make articles completely covered in detail. If online critics do them disservice, it's a damn shame, but we can't do it ourselves. You said you took your information from the article directly? Did you by chance copy it from the article's lead? That might be the problem. Can you cite this with information from the articles' bodies instead? If the album articles are in as good of condition as they should be, that same information given in the lead should be available down there too. Let me know if you have any further questions. dannymusiceditor oops 07:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You've told me?Edit

I see. Now you own genres. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: Yes, I have at least twice. I recall we had at at least one discussion about this kind of problem, and another about a similar topic, though not precisely tied with this current example. I mean, we all own genres, we're music editing Wikipedians. :p I didn't mean to sound threatening when I posted that edit summary, I cringed when I re-read it, but thank you for taking it to discussion. dannymusiceditor oops 20:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point?Edit

I am a bit surprised about the reverts with the summary "It drives me insane when people do this. If it's valid, you don't have to revert them just because they're a sock." -- I noticed this because you made a non-admin decline of a G5 tag placed by me at Freeze (Rush song), with an edit summary describing the tagging as "Bullshit".

The idea behind WP:G5 and WP:REVERTBAN seems to be denying recognition to users who have been prohibited from making any further edits to Wikipedia. It deters further violations of the sockpuppetry policy by making clear that even "valid" block evasion attempts will not persistently modify Wikipedia, and that the only acceptable way to deal with the situation is submitting an unblock request. If you disagree with the general existence of these policies, a proper response could be starting a Village Pump topic about this. Making mass reverts of policy-conform attempts to deny recognition to repeat offenders seems to be disruptive. The sockpuppeteers are already wasting enough of the community's time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

You're hitting the nail on the head when you brought up problems with REVERTBAN. I do indeed have a problem with it. Not with the premise, necessarily, but with the way it's handled most cases. This is such an example. It is counterintuitive to the good of Wikipedia. Purposefully making it worse makes absolutely no sense at all. I don't think it works effectively. He'll come back eventually and create more work for us in the long run even though he's making good edits this time around. And I am not necessarily reverting to make a point. If I were I'd have removed all of them no matter what it was, but I believe I left a few in place that work fine. In any case you can expect me to bring REVERTBAN up for discussion at the pump, not for fighting, but frankly I think the policy's enforcement is often crap. dannymusiceditor oops 23:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If you want to change WP policy, go for it. If you knowingly violate policy in individual cases with an explanation of "bullshit", how do you expect other editors to react? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Angrily, like I was that time around. I wonder if you have any idea how much this stuff infuriates me. In the example you encountered me, we're literally making this place worse for our own power, it's disgusting. Don't you know how selfish that makes us look as editors? That's why I don't want to be an admin here, ever - I don't want to be tempted by the power. (I know there are plenty of fine admins out there, and I'm friends with a few.) As a matter of fact, I might have that article undeleted and transferred to draftspace eventually. It was substantially sourced, so if I can find more content on it we should be able to publish it. dannymusiceditor oops 02:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warringEdit

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on I Should Coco; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Take it to the talk page, gain consensus, and then make the change. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk)

If a good edit is made by someone who is blocked and socking, how is someone supposed to implement that good content? Are edits made by socks automatically tainted so that actual editors cannot reinstate that information? Because that's what it looks like to me, and if it is, that mindset is what I think is bullshit, not what you assert, I'm sorry if I misled you. If do you not believe it is a good edit in the first place that's a conversation for another time and I can live with that. dannymusiceditor oops 02:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To Be Everywhere Is to Be NowhereEdit

Hey! You've got a messageEdit

You've got a message on the talk page of Junoon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Would you be willing to weigh in this discussion regarding HotNewHipHop should be count as an reliable source or not. If you want to. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts: thank you, but I have nothing to contribute beyond what's already been given. I do support as reliable based on the merits given, however. dannymusiceditor oops 03:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you suggest me about...Edit

Hey DannyMusicEditor, since you are a keen enthusiast of music and maybe an expert, so i wanted to have a suggestion. First of all introducing myself to you, I am HardSunBadMoon, a former wikipedian and i have earlier met you here for some topic (i don't think you remember). I am also known as Chandra Shekher Mishra here to many. I have done thousands of edits here though i don't have proof for it because im a fan of Neil Young.

Can you suggest me a good speaker for listening songs of ROCK genre? I have noticed that you are a fan of Pearl Jam and so am i. The utmost value of money i am willing to spend is 101 US$. Hope you will help me in doing so. REGARDS 2405:204:A100:5D80:0:0:4CD:60A4 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Colour and the ShapeEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Colour and the Shape you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brandt Luke Zorn -- Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album)Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album)Edit

The article Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverting reversionEdit

Hey Danny, what's up? I'm writing to give you a head's up that I reverted your reversions. "Advocacy group" is a vague term that mislead readers as to the nature of Empower America's work. They were a watchdog group run by social conservatives (mostly American Republicans with the exception of Joe Lieberman) specializing on violent entertainment. I understand neutrality is important but so is precision. Thanks for understanding. -Red marquis (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure neutrality > precision in this and almost every case. The readers can figure that out by reading the article about the group, not by painting it everywhere their name appears on Wikipedia. These articles are about Marilyn Manson and a shooting that the media linked them to, not the political group. The way that you've written it now has a negative connotation that attacks the group and thus takes a side. It violates a core Wikipedia policy, and I still stand firm on my opposition to this. dannymusiceditor oops 04:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we may need a third party to mediate. I'll accept whatever they decide, but, I likewise stand firm that neutrality should not come at the expense of precision. You're right that the articles are about "Marilyn Manson and a shooting that the media linked them to, not the political group". However, Empower America - as a politically connected outfit - played a huge role (among other groups such as the American Family Association) in painting Manson in such a way that led the media to do what they did. They wanted to be, and took on the role of being, the PMRC of the 90's. Let's also not forget that Marilyn Manson's adversaries were right-wingers. He specifically set out to piss them off and they responded. So in that context, what I wrote was appropriate - whether or not it "takes a side". In this case, I simply stated they are a "violent entertainment watchdog group" (a conservative one), which is exactly what William Bennett intended it to be when he founded the group. I still think that is neutral within the bounds of Wikipedia's rules. There is no negative connotation to that. It is no different than the PMRC being the same when Tipper Gore and her friends founded it.
Don't get me wrong. I understand your concern. But, to me, not being neutral in this case would be outright calling them a "fringe right wing censorship cabal." I get that what some people consider "neutral" may already appear as biased to others. Hence, why I think we need a mediator. -Red marquis (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Hey Red marquis, I never got back on top of this, but now I have a little time to do so. I'm still leaning towards not liking this a whole lot. I haven't had time to file a discussion yet. Where should I take it? dannymusiceditor oops 00:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album)Edit

The article Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Patrick MaroonEdit

Hey DannyMusicEditor,

I saw this edit on Patrick Maroon and thought I would explain more in-depth. Based off of essays and policies such as WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BLPNAMES, and WP:MINORS, names of minors should be omitted when they do not add to the article. In cases such as Ellen Weinberg-Hughes, whose sons (Jack Hughes (ice hockey, born 2001), and Luke Hughes) may be minors but are very high profile hockey players and are gaining their own, independent, media attention, yes naming a minor makes sense. However, quoting WP:BLPNAMES, "Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value....The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." I like to veer on the cautionary side and try and avoid naming minors. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

HickoryOughtShirt?4, I'd object to it not "adding to the article", because I've heard the kid named on several occasions on live NHL broadcasts (by all of National, Blues, and Oilers broadcasts). He was reportedly a reason why he signed with the Blues despite being offered more money elsewhere - I can find a link for that somewhere. Sure, he's not a Hughes, but if it's not being held private by the NHL, what's the harm? I mean, I won't really fight it, it's not something I find needs direly changed, but I don't see it being so bad. I can see why you went for it there. I just thought I'd offer my perspective. (The kid is the son of an NHL player going to the Stanley Cup finals, for Pete's sake, he should be proud.) dannymusiceditor oops 01:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Colour and the ShapeEdit

The article The Colour and the Shape you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:The Colour and the Shape for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Brandt Luke Zorn -- Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "DannyMusicEditor".