User talk:Nouse4aname/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RE: Wrong user

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)

Interesting how you so often seem to be defending yourself then....Nouse4aname (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to, but I feel compelled as I don't want to look like the "bad guy" as twsx would paint me. Yes, I'm defensive. Your point? As I said, I will just let my edits, etc. speak for themselves in the present and future. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

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)

User page comments

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)

82.38.65.47 and Genres

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. Timmeh! 10:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparent vandalism

Please can you explain the articles that you have recently converted to redirects? LittleOldMe (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it. Sorry I was being thick. LittleOldMe (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry to cast aspersions. I too am suffering long day syndrome. regards LittleOldMe (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

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)

Thy Serpent/EP

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)

Oh I see. Well, I've sort of moved away from editing Panic at the Disco since I heard their new CD, and now I'm focusing on "foreign" music. (Thy Serpent is Finnish). JazzlineB (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

wtf=

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)

thats because every1 is wrong, and im right, the way i see it its either my way or my way ...and why are u on american sites if u live in the uk. USEDfan (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

im 19 and ur prob liek 15 with ur ignorance level, and its obvious ur young because any time u have a problem with me instead of being a man and taking it head on u go cry to a wiki admin or ur mom for help and report me, thats mature, be a tatle tale. USEDfan (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

how old are u? 10? being a baby aint to be proud of so shallow ur pride kido, u have a myspace? we can be cyber freinds. USEDfan (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

u continue to refuse to answe ur age, ur obvious a young teen who thinks they are perfect and the world revolves around them, mommy and daddy prob buy u everything u need and want and thats why u have a spoiled weiny attitude that everything shud be the way u want. ur 16 right? USEDfan (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ok i suppose u meant to type 15, male, 8th grade, self center, and yes i am alwys right ty 4 pointing that out. USEDfan (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ur 25, live with ur parents, obviously have no job since ur always online, 4 some reason u have nothing better to do then realize i edited my talk page which i have no idea why u wud look at, it seems like u have a lot to learn cause ur showing me u havnet done much with ur life, i feel bad 4 u in a way, ur prob single, a mamas boy id assume and a pc nerd who sits on their computer all day, and doesnt let any1 make changes and memories all these rules and codes, id maybe give u a hug to cheer u up if i was over there :] . USEDfan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

i think im gona try to get some sleep since its almost 6 am here, idk y u edit th eused page but i realli wish u never started to, its been a big problem, u no when u make an apple pie and one apple is bad, it ruins the whole pie, well ur the bad apple. g-nite USEDfan (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sponsored names

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. – PeeJay 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I mean, the Celtic League article was only moved to Magners League as recently as about a month ago, I just missed it until yesterday. As for the Guinness Premiership, I'm not sure it's ever been known by an unsponsored name, but since it's had so many different sponsors, "English Premiership" seemed the most appropriate title, with "rugby union" serving as a disambiguator, as "English Premiership" on its own redirects to Premier League. – PeeJay 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

added a bit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union that will hopefully open up the debate. Just a little note left there, feel free to flesh out the conversation there.Londo06 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

used

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)

Premier League updates

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. – PeeJay 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Too right. And as much as we wish it wasn't true, everything's a business these days. If your costs outweight your income, you don't survive. – PeeJay 15:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite likely. And it's a shame really. Really puts the brakes on all those independent fansites out there. – PeeJay 15:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Katagory V

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, Mallanox 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)

wah wah wah. dont be so angry, u dont own the site and ur acting like u do. USEDfan (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Funeral for a Friend

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)

Fair enough, I'll probably wait because that's the sort of thing that will be put on their official non-myspace site, which is currently down. U-Mos (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

used

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)

ur the kid that needs to mature and grow up, it shows nothing b4 it and u make a big deal out of it. USEDfan (talk) 22:05, 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)

if it is blank its showing th eband broke up, and is not releasing anything else, also sotp removing the - in demos, it shows there is nothing released b4 it, a - represesnts nothing which is why we put them on the singles table, to represent nothing where they didnt chart, please stop removing this info, thanx. USEDfan (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

u only follow wha tu want, the studio albums shud only be lsited in the chronogicall as said by th erule u told me to read, then we shud remove the - from the singles table too if it represents nothing acording to u right? USEDfan (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

the used have already confirmed the year jack so we do no the year, anything thing u dont like u dont no, we follow half the rules and thne sya ht eother rule doesnt count, all u do is customize everyhting to how u want it, how does a "25 year old succesful educated man" have nohting better do to in life then worry about a tiny little - being on a page that no1 cares about or wud prob notice, i feel bad 4 u if this is the case. USEDfan (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No one cares about your favourite band's demo album? That seems strange. Do you even know what you're talking about? --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for edit warring. See this. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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. — Scientizzle 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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

I've heard it all now, too long? That is surely not a fair or just reason to decline an unblock. Imagine that sort of attitude in court...sorry sir, your defense is too long, therefore you must be guilty. Absolutely ridiculous. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

TOO LONG?? Did I read that correctly? That is ridiculous. It is a shame there are admins that are too damn lazy to even read an unblock request if it is "too long" I didn't realize there were a set character limit for the template. Landon1980 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Fair enough. I accept the ban, and admit I was edit warring, although I thought I was justified in doing so, I am now well aware that even with consensus on my side, edit warring is not acceptable. However, I do feel that imposing the ban an hour after the edit warring stopped seems like a punishment rather than to prevent further damage.... You are entirely right that the warring was over very lame details, and that is one reason that I was reluctant to get admins/third opinion involved. However, this sort of editing is kind of my niche, and I tend to perform these simple, minor (usually non-controversial!!) edits to maintain a consistent format, which I believe is important in a portraying a professional image of wikipedia. You may notice that discussions with this user are essentially unproductive, and to be fair, I did enter discussion to explain my edits (although I did continue reverting, which I shouldn't have). Nouse4aname (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

update

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)

Unblock request

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)

Administrators are volunteers. They are not required, and frequently not inclined, to read long and complicated requests. If you request something from an administrator, including an unblock, you will tend to be more successful if you write as briefly and clearly as possible. See also User:Sandstein/Unblock.  Sandstein  08:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, however surely it would be more fair that if you do not want to read it then you leave it for someone else, rather than declining it without having read it...Nouse4aname (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. On the other hand, declining it gives you the opportunity to write a briefer and perhaps more successful request.  Sandstein  09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: YouTube Videos

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)

U KNOW

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)

o yeah?

"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)

unfortunitly no admins lsiten to me anymore, vandals have vandlized me and everyhting is messed up, its better if u do, i no u love getting ppl banned so why not. USEDfan (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDfan

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)

Busted

No problem, the thing is a vandalism magnet. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

** Flashing neon lights **

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)

He's back. Under the name Shake 3000. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He is continuing to be disruptive at Template:The Used. Let's do something already. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In Regards To Pop Punk.

Please refer to the discussion page for some possible amendments to the list.

Re: Madina Lake album track 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)

Paramore

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)

Re: Re: Paramore

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 have no opinion to back up that Paramore is emo. Only fact" Is that a joke? Landon1980 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pixies songs

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)

You missed out "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", which I believe there is in this way. Therefore seperate articles on the songs should continue to exist. CloudNine (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely yet, but "Tame" was an influence on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Crackity Jones" was notable as part of the Pixies' early history. I've written nine featured articles (and most of them on the Pixies), so I reckon I can expand these to fully-featured articles, while also establishing their notability. CloudNine (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"The New Transmission"

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)

re: Radio:ACTIVE

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)

Proposed deletion of Bad Habit (The Offspring song)

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)

AfD nomination of Bad Habit (The Offspring song)

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)

Your recent edits

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)

AfD nomination of BRitic

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)

mewithoutYou

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)

Martin Johnson

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? – PeeJay 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that, although a footnote might be better, and it would save space in the table. "Martin Johnson ^[1]" looks better than "Martin Johnson (team manager)" in a table. – PeeJay 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

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)

Lady Danville

Thanks for your edit on the Lady Danville article. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contribs) 09:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Nouse4aname, Carousel, was a bilnk-182 single? OffsBlink (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: You (Bad Religion song)

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)

79.211.102.30

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. Timmeh! 14:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your redirect of Brian Hoffman‎ and Eric Hoffman‎ (guitarist)

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)

Dookie

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)

No, pop punk is most defintely a subgenre of punk, as much as New Wave and post-punk are, which are even less punk purist. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Mind you, I helped write much of punk rock. Note that the section on pop punk decribes it as punk taken to its most melodic level. It's still classified as a subgenre of punk rock. The main pop punk is frankly a mess and most of the information cited is unreliable and/or misconstrued. Once again people have used that DeRogatis ref (which I myself had inserted into Green Day to reference the band's role in repopularizing punk rock in 1994) to cite something it doesn't say.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

For sake of brevity I still say just list punk and alternative. The infobox is supposed to be a brief overview of the article, so brevity and simplicity are key. For the general reader, adding pop punk in addition to plain old punk rock is pointless. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Pop punk has been removed from the album page infoboxes before. This is not the band article; keeping the genres as succinct as possible is generally the best course for recording articles. As for asking random people what genre they would call Green Day, I was referring to the general reader, the person who probably doesn't know who Green Day is but is still reading the article (and yes, this does happen; one of the goals of Wikipedia is ro write for the general reader). "Pop punk" is not needed for context in the infobox when the broader "punk rock" sufficies. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SDRE

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)

SDRE

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."

• I redirected articles on singles, which generally aren't notable unless they have charted.

2 - Sunny Day Real Estate are notable, otherwise you can perfectly delete their page. They meet some of the points in notability for bands.

• This is not about the band. They are notable, thus I have not deleted their article. However, just because the band is notable, does not mean avery song they release is.

3 - Those singles were official - not bootlegs, not promos, nothing. They were released on SubPop, which I think is a sufficient notable label.

• I do not dispute the fact that they are official. What they are not is chart hits. Unless they charted or have been performed by numerous other bands, then the song does not require an article.

So, if you think you can just delete other people's work without not so much reason to do that, think twice.

• See WP:MUSIC#Songs for the reasoning for the redirect. The info has not been deleted, it can be obtained by viewing earlier versions of the page through the history tab. Feel free to add sourced content into relevant album articles.

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)

Your redirect to Ray Toro

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)

Ah, yes, I see that now. Thanks, I had just noticed that he met several of the other criteria and was curious as to why you had chosen to redirect it.  Orfen  ^T • _C 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Capitalization of 'qhnnnl' Article

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)

Re: FF

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)

dredg

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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5