User talk:FlightTime/Archive 17

The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

You reverted my edits to Phill Collins because you think the phrase ‘each has’ is not proper British English. I do know what you'e talking about (Formal and notional agreement; "the committee is" vs. "the committee are" and things like that), but as someone fairly familiar with British English, I don't think ‘each’ is ever used with a verb in the plural in the UK; it's not a collective noun at all, and so it can't be used with a verb in the plural, even in British English. I see from your user page that, like me, you're an American; we can ask some actual Brits if we can't work this out amongst ourselves. Esszet (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David McCallum met his first wife, Jill Ireland, on March 28 1957. I cannot cite this as this information is not 'out there' in the public yet. My aunties were going through some old post cards of their close friend (Jill) when they found a personal letter than provided us with a date. This evidence is not citable as we will not be uploading it or sharing the full card online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyrusBasil (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CyrusBasil: I'm not saying it's not true, but if you want to make that claim and have it stay, it needs a reliable source. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: I have original, tangible evidence with me that I can send to anyone in charge of Wikipedia edits to verify, this is a reliable source. As mentioned - this cannot be cited it is newly found information and not available online. This information is accurate and I have first hand evidence to prove it, so I will keep making the correct edit and encourage my family and friends to do so.

@CyrusBasil: If your claim can not be verified by a reader then it can not be included. If you continue you can be blocked and/or the page can be locked. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlpearc: My claim can be verified by many readers. Just because you are unaware of this information you are trying to get rid of it. This is ridiculous. I can also report you and provide any mediator with the evidence I have.

@CyrusBasil: Then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a reliable source to backup your claim. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MlPearc: I will leave the post card on David McCallum fan pages with the personal details blocked out and encourage individuals to make this edit and report you for trying to do otherwise. That should help, right? I don't know what you think people will get out of putting a fake date that two individuals met. You have turned trying to add a fun fact of when he met his first wife into a nightmare. As stated before AND AGAIN, this information is NEW it is not up online YET, there is no source that can be cited, but I will take this matter further to get the truth out.

I added a music genre. Does that really require a citation? If so, why were there no citations for the other two genres listed? And I didn't merely add text but a link that acted as a citation in and of itself. I looked at the page for the music genre added before making the edit, which lists Taylor Swift. Isn't Wikipedia a good enough rederence for itself?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_pop

Here are other references:

http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=131070169&m=1

http://www.amazon.com/Taylor-Swift-Country-Maker-Culture/dp/1467702390

Nstott (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to cite my source, but have been unsuccessful. Until I figure it out, I will stop. Did not intend to create any problems.

GHBArchives — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHBArchives (talk • contribs) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GHBArchives: Note: Facebook is not an acceptable source, please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to provide a link for the DWT edit at least. It did start in June 2001, the Wiki article for that tour indicates that. April 2001 is incorrect.

E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20Panorama15 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it had anything to do with American or British. To me, "evolve" implies an advancement or an improvement over the previous iteration. In the case in question, it would be a highly subjective opinion that a lot of people happen to disagree with. The word I switched it to worked in both language and left no such ambiguity. Much less opinionated and loses nothing.

Is this not the definition in England? My apologies if so. There was no disrespect intended. Heck, I spell colour with a "u" so I don't have an american ego. lol It simply looked like another wiki example of an opinion being stated as fact.

Kind Regards, Dutches Julie of Devenshire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.89.135 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@74.88.89.135: you changed commercialised to commercialized and favourites to favorites with this edit, this is why I reverted your edit and had nothing to do with "evolve". Mlpearc (open channel) 00:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a link from Chess Games. I hope this is sufficient. I was not informed of the reason for the reversion before.--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrm2007: It seems you may have made many edits without citing sources, which should be done on all information added to an article. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both the Visaria and the Windom info could easily be substantiated rather than reverted. I will not bother adding the information in again. Had you warned me and given me the chance to add sources I would have bothered. Anyway, I think you should unrevert and add the sources. If you want don't to do so, that's your problem and Wikipedia's loss.--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrm2007: Please see WP:BURDEN. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Certainly whatever the rule is does not preclude politely informing the editor first.--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you are wrong to be doing this without informing the editor first. I found another reversion that I would not have noticed had I not been looking. You should stop doing this and instead send a message first. The information may never make it back into Wikipedia now.--Jrm2007 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrm2007: Yes, it would be better if you would do it correct the first time, people are not here to "sweep up behind you". Mlpearc (open channel) 02:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make these additions at random or as guesswork or anything like that. Anyone who has been keeping up with the band will know that these are actual legit additions. I could certainly look for and add documentation if needed. But this band is notorious for not documenting many of their changes...except on Facebook, which you do not except, apparently. Well, I won't add anything here anymore as apparently this is yet another entry that someone appears to be overly anal retentive about.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.159.51 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@147.31.159.51: It is always needed, please see WP:REFBEGIN Mlpearc (open channel) 21:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Kurdish and an authority on this topic I'd love to hear why you disagree with the information I am presenting. Otherwise, if you are not Kurdish, and an authority of this topic kindly restrict your views to those. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerevanberg (talk • contribs) 22:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerevanberg: I am not Kurdish but, I can surely tell when unsourced content is added to an article. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 22:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure why I need to cite any sources on the RATT page regarding my edits of the current members. I personally know 3 of the current members, who have just recently performed a show under the name RATT. The courts ruled in favor of Bobby Blotzer, allowing him to tour under the name RATT. Even if that were to change in the future, the fact of the matter is that the current members of RATT who are currently performing under that name are not the current members listed on the RATT Wikipedia page, making the page incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnsryker (talk • contribs) 06:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything needs to be verifiable by reliable sources, which leaves out personal knowledge. Please see WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. Mlpearc (open channel) 06:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that all you people have to do? Like you're just sitting at home on your computer and correcting meaningless edits to pages that don't really matter? And how the fuck would you know what genre a song is when something like that is highly subjective? who are the arbiters of what genre a song is around here?

I am sitting at home correcting meaningless edits like yours, the people who are in charge of genre's are the editors sitting at home. You're good :P Mlpearc (open channel) 03:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.drummagazine.com/features/post/brent-fitz-idol-hands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.183.72 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mlpearc, thank you for your feedback on my edits to the article on Geddy Lee. What would my citation need to show - a source documenting that the things that happened to Geddy Lee's parents are best understood as having occurred in the context of the Holocaust as well as WWII? Or a source documenting something different?

BradKramerBoston (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)BradKramerBoston[reply]

Well, actually the whole section about his parents needs sources, as the one source there is about Peart and nothing about Lee's parents. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think one should always give a reason when reverting a good faith edit. Cheers! ciphergoth (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about my edit to San Manuel Amphitheater. The IP editor changed the site link from the operator's official site to a third party site. You can verify that sanbernardinoamphitheater.com is a third party site by looking at the site's disclaimer where they say "This site is independent guide operated by Pure Tonic Marketing ... This site is not affiliated or sponsored by Live Nation". The official site for the San Manuel Amphitheater is here. I'd like to change the link back to the official site, but I won't if you object. —RP88 ^(talk) 20:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RP88: No, the official site is what I was going for, thanx for catching my oversight. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the prompt reply. If it's just an oversight on your part, I'll let you self-revert. —RP88 ^(talk) 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mlpearc (open channel) 20:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not from my personal view. Black Sabbath is known as a heavy metal band. Which means that most (if not at least 1/4) of their songs are heavy metal. I have listened to every song, many of them are heavy metal (except for Breakout). Please do not change it again. It isnot vandalising or disruptive editing. It is improving.

Regards, TheEarthboundFan2001 TheEarthboundFan2001 (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheEarthboundFan2001: regardless, you must gain consensus and present reliable sources on genre changes. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you want to add your claim. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 04:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seals and Crofts' "Hummingbird" (1973) was decades before their daughters formed The Humming Birds (or, if you prefer, the Humming Birds, which is not the name by which the group goes), note, in December 2010, not 2011, which the article claims. So the statement that I made should not need any references, since it is only an observation tying two closely related pieces of information that already have citations. But if you still need a reference, how about http://www.unityfeast.org/Hummingbirds.htm ? Note that the video clip of "Hummingbird" follows the discussion of the daughters' group.107.185.145.26 (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling back my original edits - poorly done on my part. I added better links and refs. My other changes are straightforward, but reasons are:

I could not find confirmation that they moved in 1974, but that "fact" was already in the article, so I accepted it. Negreanu was born in Canada in 1974, so this means he was born the year they moved to Canada.

Sentence structure adjusted a bit - put year of birth and their arrival in one information flow, then put his ambition and the quote about it in one sentence rather than half his ambition in the "brother" sentence and then a seperate "ambition quote" sentence.

Your thoughts?Jmg38 (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your comment - both of us editing at same time!! Thank you.Jmg38 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry about the Rob Halford image -- I've never done an update before that required consensus, not entirely sure how this works. I've added a discussion to the talk page, would appreciate your feedback when you get a chance!

Mark Coatsworth (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to question the removing of my edits and citations of the following song Another Brick in the Wall part II by Pink Floyd while I've forgotten entirely (sorry) about the noting what I updated I still listed valuable information that I feel should have been more than enough. Perhaps compare this to the similar 1980 Queen song Another One Bites the Dust and note the similar themes in guitars. In my opinion and pretty much any other Pink Floyd fan this is entirely or at least a heavily influenced disco-rock song and I think disco should stay on the genre list. I can also more than willingly give a dozen more citations citing the disco genre in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonstopmaximum (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonstopmaximum: Disco is listed as a "style" which is not the same as "Genre". Please sign your talk page posts, thank you. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 03:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you deleted my mention of Dream Theater's A Change of Seasons on the page for Carry On Wayward Son, claiming it was "unsourced." However, in the Wikipedia article for A Change of Seasons, it lists the inclusion of the song. Does this not count as an adequate source? If not, let me know so I can find an alternative reference. Hypnometal (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why you deleted my contribution to Music (Madonna song). I obtained the cover art from a cover art database which itself focuses on obtaining high quality cover arts that are not scanned. I don't really see how it is unreliable.

Thanks 20Panorama15 (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...your inappropriate edits and leave my user talk page. Thanks. I don't need your aggressive spam. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Language (band).

It looks like you tagged this under WP:CSD#A7, which addresses if there is an "indication of importance", which is a lower threshold than notability. So, even if an article has an indication of importance and cannot be deleted via the speedy process, it may still not meet the threshold to be notable and would be deletable via an AfD. I just wanted to point out that difference, as it may come up again in the future - if a speedy gets declined, but you believe the subject is not notable, you can start an AfD as the next level of review. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Barek: Thank you for the explanation :) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpearc - Thought I would send you a message as well. "we" is really me, but I do work at company. I did list it for full disclosure on the talk page of the company. I promise I am not trying to write an ad - I just want the mobile page to be the same as the desktop. Thank you for asking. Bjurgensen (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I see on the talk page, you have been notified of the issues. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, I just wanted you to know that I followed up on your suggestion to improve the Low Desert article. I'm not done yet, however, you may find a substantial improvement. Thanks, - Pocketthis (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Mlpearc, and may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, I'm sorry what I did on the maintenance template on William Shatner. I might have made a mistake, but I think I would leave that page alone for now — Preceding unsigned comment added by DTM1997 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are taking modern music distribution methods seriously enough. Motion Device produce original work as well as covering many of the greats (not that should matter, considering some of the other covers that are included among the "Covers" section on here) but have over 2 million views on this video alone. Don't just take my word for it - look through this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNMa0JZzoH4 (nearly 4 years old), and see what some pretty big names were saying about them even then - before they'd actually produced any original material except on Youtube - they now have an EP and Album, both completely original, to their names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilLee2802 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilLee2802: I am familiar with the band, I've seen their videos (I actual like them, young kids performing song I grew up with) The problem I have is I do not believe they are notable enough for mention. Your best avenue is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and gain consensus for inclusion. P.S. Please sign your talk page post Mlpearc (open channel) 20:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what any of this language means. I am no longer going to edit anything here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elevated123 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mlpearc. I got no response to my last enquiry, so I'm hoping for better luck with this one. What's your rationale for this edit? I believe that musician is universally known, in music circles, as "Rick Wright" not Richard Wright, just like Tony Banks is known as Tony and not Anthony. And The Nice were certainly known as The Nice, as their article clearly shows? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Thank you very much Same to you & yours ! Mlpearc (open channel) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Mlpearc,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

@Yamaguchi先生: Thank you very much Same to you & yours ! Mlpearc (open channel) 00:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are buildings and locations now eligible for CSD A7? Peter James (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter James: I have no idea, I see no mention of such. I tagged it for the subject, Seems nothing more than a large strip mall. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:CSD: "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event". I don't think Settlers Green is any of these, and the sources in the article (one, although appears to be promotional, describes it as "New England's largest outlet mall") are an indication of significance. Peter James (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to take it to Talk: Billy Joel, but yet you don't want to address anything on the talk page yourself? Please tell me how that makes sense. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can read here where it says Dune is a landmark of soft science fiction. So how can a landmark of soft science fiction not be considered soft science fiction?--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Taeyebaar: Tell me, how is the average reader of our fine project, suppose to know your claim is correct ? Are you going to stand by and direct readers to here ? Mlpearc (open channel) 20:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1: Click on the link

Step 2: Read the section

Step 3: Click on the refs

Step 4: Open the links on the refs

Step 5: Read the websites

Hope that helps. *Smile*--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you hadn't checked to see if I was nominated instead of requesting it myself before posting then removing your comment.  — Calvin999 23:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: Yes, hence my edit summary on the next edit. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well either way...  — Calvin999 09:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How was my post disruptive? I'm on an IP shared by probably 100 people if you're only looking at history.

Ain't it Fun was written by and originally recorded by Rocket From the Tombs. The Dead Boys were a band formed by two members of Rocket From the Tombs and they put it on their second album. Unless you want to get into the space time continuum, Rocket From the Tombs wrote it and performed it first. And the GNR version follows the RFTT version as closely as a band can.

I think the issue is someone using this as the source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't_It_Fun_(The_Dead_Boys_song)

The hyperlink says it's a Dead Boys song but even the article acknowledges this is a RFTT song.

Hi, I just wanted to say that I believe Elvis Presley played the piano, and this is not on his Wikipedia page. There is documented evidence I've read in biographies to support this. I just think he deserves this recognition. I ask you because you are the last to edit hit page. Thank you.

@2600:1007:b12f:8239:0:31:3bfc:b301: I am in no way saying that Elvis didn't play piano but, piano is secondary to what he is most know for and during a normal public show of his, he sang and occasionally played guitar while singing. It is well documented that he spent hours at home in font of a piano. According to Template:Infobox musical artist the infobox is for listing only the artist's primary instrument(s) and mention any secondary ones in prose. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redzed9876: If you would like to discuss users or articles, I prefer you do it on wiki and not via my email. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 20:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did get a block on one of these dynamically changing account for "2602" and "2601", but I am just now discovering that there may be some block evasion by that account in progress. I am hatting this since the list is quite long. Is this an issue? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of dynamically changing account following your block request

− 2601:241:8200:CA6D:6D7F:CA28:6307:3F28 ec · topedits 12 0 0% 2015-12-06, 13:00 2015-12-26, 00:21 1.6 308 − − 2601:642:4000:4E45:39A1:B959:EA6E:A751 ec · topedits 5 0 0% 2016-01-10, 07:08 2016-01-10, 07:14 0 39 − − 2601:44:8800:175E:D75:6269:75B7:BD07 ec · topedits 5 0 0% 2016-01-05, 00:33 2016-01-05, 00:36 0 4 − − 2602:306:CC1E:E2E9:5DA:F442:15F7:7B3E ec · topedits 4 0 0% 2015-12-27, 03:35 2015-12-27, 04:09 0 2,264 − − 2602:306:CC1E:B619:EC05:E28B:1CD1:D44 ec · topedits 3 0 0% 2016-01-05, 02:31 2016-01-05, 02:37 0 2,263 − − 2602:30A:2EE7:2800:29E4:3E13:20D8:B920 ec · topedits 2 0 0% 2016-01-15, 05:41 2016-01-15, 05:42 0 15 − − 2601:241:8403:2400:A0FB:F305:583A:CA5E ec · topedits 2 0 0% 2016-01-14, 22:54 2016-01-14, 22:57 0 0 − − 2602:301:7796:AAA0:A988:F95D:95AE:E0BA ec · topedits 2 0 0% 2016-01-14, 16:30 2016-01-14, 16:38 0 0 − − 2601:601:600:33AA:2C37:D984:BBB6:B6C3 ec · topedits 2 0 0% 2016-01-13, 16:33 2016-01-13, 16:37 0 0 − − 2600:1012:B112:4AFD:498D:378C:393D:7E3B ec · topedits 2 0 0% 2015-12-12, 00:53 2015-12-12, 02:58 0 605 − − 2601:7:6580:112F:5492:C907:70A2:2AA6 ec · topedits 2 0 0% 2015-03-26, 00:17 2015-03-26, 00:18 0 38 − − 2601:807:8002:8367:3CAB:5001:E96A:EF8D ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-15, 00:13 2016-01-15, 00:13 0 34 − − 2602:304:CEEE:B700:9BC:39FC:4BCD:3A13 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-14, 20:06 2016-01-14, 20:06 0 26 − − 2601:543:C001:8CE9:1508:A57C:495:F1E1 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-14, 13:58 2016-01-14, 13:58 0 0 − − 2602:304:68A5:9B20:2580:F9C9:5822:1A25 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-14, 01:14 2016-01-14, 01:14 0 0 − − 2602:306:CC1E:FF19:5C7C:7EE7:470D:2BF0 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-10, 07:26 2016-01-10, 07:26 0 0 − − 2602:306:CC1E:FF19:140E:643:BBC5:1885 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-09, 13:01 2016-01-09, 13:01 0 0 − − 2601:2C7:4200:501E:2467:6C95:5162:7639 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-07, 15:19 2016-01-07, 15:19 0 0 − − 2601:585:8400:27C0:9913:E441:CC79:A107 ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-04, 06:46 2016-01-04, 06:46 0 0 − − 2602:304:B1BF:D050:30DD:47E3:F79C:A79F ec · topedits 1 0 0% 2016-01-03, 23:30 2016-01-03, 23:30 0 13

This is from the film The Revenant alone. It gets longer when other pages are combined into it. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fountains-of-Paris: What ? not sure why you posted here, please explain. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link for your previous block request which was granted here [1]. It seems that "2602" and "2601" are doing this dynamic account change thing by changing the extensions on their prefix names almost each time they log in. The issued block you requested appears to be being ignored by block evasion. Is this a concern. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin, there's little I can do. It might be best to bring this up to the blocking Admin Materialscientist Mlpearc (open channel) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File rename

Hey. This is really minor, but I noticed you moved File:Gangster-vip-poster.JPG to File:Gangster-vip-poster.jpg (only lowercasing the extension). As I understand WP:FMV, this isn't usually necessary, so in the future those cases can be left alone. I think MediaWiki (now?) prevents you from using outright incorrect file extensions. — Earwig ^talk 07:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: I've read WP:FMV, which mentions nothing about changing to lowercase, can you please explain how changing the extension text from caps to lowercase. Note: the file extension was not in error as you mention I think MediaWiki (now?) prevents you from using outright incorrect file extensions I know we always strive for uniformity across the project which has me at a loss as to why this is discouraged. Thanx, Mlpearc (open channel) 17:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "What files should not be renamed?" section, it's pointed out that renames just to slightly better names are usually not necessary. WP:FNC#8 includes an example where the extension in a new name remains capitalized. I don't mean to discourage you, just that this seems to fall under the category of "not worth worrying about if it's the only problem". — Earwig ^talk 20:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: I guess it's a bit of a "pet peeve" of mine, if the only reason for not changing to lowercase is "it's not worth the time" then I choose to continue. (I have time to waste :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 20:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death - "Symbolic" Genre

While I appreciate citing sources for genres, regardless of subjective opinion I don't think anyone would classify this album as ''Pop/Rock'. I think it would be classed as 'Technical death metal, progressive metal' along with the rest of Deaths later releases.

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKnoba (talk • contribs) 02:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but, all you have to do is look at the reference from Allmusic.com. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Nimoy TV filmography.

Hi. I noticed you reverted the TV roles I added. What was wrong? Do I need to add references? That is what I was trying to do with the "citations needed" at Mr. Nimoy's first uncredited film roles, when our editing went into conflict. Formatting is a bit like Enigma Code for me. LLAP :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maykiwi (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maykiwi: Yes, you neeed to have a reliable source to backup your claim. Mlpearc (open channel) 17:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I know, and I have them, but in the edit page seemingly nothing in linked to those sources. There was no format in there to hint me about how to do it, so I was using the general "references" formatting on the uncredited roles to see if that worked. How or where do I show the reliable source? I checked all the guides when I made my first editing, I can't find the answer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maykiwi (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maykiwi: See: WP:REFBEGIN for help. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I don't get it yet. Your advice leads to references to reliable sources in the body of the page, which is something I have done before, quite successfully. What I don't find is how to do that in the filmography list, where there are almost no references in the list as it is. Which format do I use? The Big Bang Theory's, which is like the usual reference format; or the 1965, Death Valley Days, which seemingly leads to nowhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maykiwi (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. (I guess I got the format right, at least. And the signature, I hope). So, no IMDB. O.K. But, the following article seems more reliable, since it shows a clip from the movie in which we can actually see Mr. Nimoy. Why to remove it too? If not reliable enough, the next possibility would be Amazon's movie description. Is that reliable enough? There is very little to find about an uncredited role :-)Maykiwi (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV Reports

Hi Mlpearc, I wanted to let you that some further input was requested regarding your recent reports to WP:AIV. I was wondering if you'd mind popping by please? SQL^{Query me!} 19:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mlpearc (open channel) 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring going on across Drake articles

I know you've edited music articles a lot, so I was hoping I could get a third opinion on something. After a consensus was clearly established on Drake articles that his two latest releases were mixtapes (considered no one argued against it in a long time), Justinw303 decided to argue against it - we took it to the talk page, but he basically just discounted every source are brought (from Billboard, SLate Magazine, etc.) saying that they're wrong, he's right, and just edited Drake (rapper), Drake discography, and If You're Reading This It's Too Late just dubbing them album. Can you perhaps solve this dispute? Thank you in advance. Discussion on it is at the said editor's talk page, and Talk:Drake discography. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Prasad: I wish I could but, TBH I'm no good at disputes (clearing them up I mean, I'm pretty good at starting them though) again sorry, good luck, Mlpearc (open channel) 02:50, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's fine. No biggie. I'll get it figured somehow. It's just the going against established consensus and having the "I'm right and these sources are wrong" attitude that bothered me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're right when you said you're no good at disputes, haha. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph Prasad: Mlpearc (open channel) 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RTL

I deleted the disputed sentence from the lead. But the removal of the other information (sales, songs analysis) I added confused me a bit. I hope it was unintentional error. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only concern I have is the ease of a reader to check a claim, and we can not just sit here a point to a section to every reader who might want proof, the proof needs to be next to the claim, not in some section further down the page. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I corrected myself. Just please be more careful next time, because in your edit you also removed quite sourced information.--Retrohead (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please explain. The original genre on both of those albums was heavy metal. Paranoid is not doom metal. One song on the album (Electric Funeral) could be considered to be "proto doom metal", but nothing on there is doom (much less stoner) metal. Master of Reality is not sludge metal. Sludge metal is a mixture of hardcore punk and doom metal. It is not progressive metal either. Please stop changing it back. I do not see any sources for those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Wizard13 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common Thread: The Songs of the Eagles

I'm afraid you need to explain why you reverted the edits. The edits are all sourced, and is in the process of being improved. You need a good reason to remove properly sourced content. Hzh (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh:Please, I returned the "sourced" content you removed, "Without reason" (not to mention the puffery) Mlpearc (open channel) 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I removed any sourced content, what do you mean? I moved two sections to the Background, is that what you mean? Hzh (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder about the accusation of puffery. Genesis of the project is not puffery, but a necessary background to any album. If you are wondering about the part where other musicians were telling Don Henley how the Eagles had influenced them, then you misunderstood, it was meant to show that the project would be viable, that there were artists who might be interested in his project, according to Henley in the source. Hzh (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Seems the "Proceeds" section was removed and is still missing. If you would use the edit summary system we probably wouldn't be here. As to the puffery IMO "who had grown up listening to the band" is a little on that side. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proceeds section became part of the background so that there is a coherent narrative. No word was changed apart from removing the section title. An article looks better and reads more coherent when there aren't little sections dotted about. If you object to a single phrase (and that is from one of sources), you can remove it, but it is not a reason for blanket revert. Hzh (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why the edit summary system was created and not because someone had nothing to do. Goodday! Mlpearc (open channel) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break

I need a break, way too many stupid fucking idiot morons

Mickey Dee is the newest drummer in Thin Lizzy. Thank you very much. The planet knew of this three day ago. Three four days ago. So I corrected the page. You said not to change it unless it's credible info. Well when most of the music news websites around the world have said that Mickey Dee is the newest drummer in Thin Lizzy....also New York Times.....I'm going to change it. Cause you guys did not. Before you accuse me of false info,go online and do your homework. Mickey Dee is the newest drummer.Eastcoastkid76 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACC Declination

Resolved

Mlpearc (open channel) 16:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text here, some there, and everywhere I would like to talk to you in private, as said in your talk page banner. It says you do not have a set e-mail. What to do? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: If you use irc you can join my channel here: ##mlpearc ^connect Mlpearc (open channel) 16:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive??

Why would you consider this edit to be disruptive. I fully explained the edit and its merit. The OFFICIAL PACKAGING has the OFFICIAL TITLES of the pieces written as "Side 1" "Side 2" "Side 3" and "Side 4". That is the accurate way to list the titles, not "Side one" and so on, as previously listed. Unless you have a BETTER reason than "DISRUPTIVE" to dismiss accuracy, then you should leave the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.113.101 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@75.147.113.101: Why do you think that a packaging style of a record company dictates the style here ? Mlpearc (open channel) 17:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing genre from "rock" to heavy metal"

Hello,

I am writing because you reverted one of my changes in that page, when I swapped "rock" to "heavy metal", because I "didn't provide a source".

Not taking into account that Black Sabbath is one of the seminal bands of heavy metal, I have these complaints:

- There is no source or citation opposite to my position. Why can someone unwarrantedly say "Black Sabbath is rock" and it stays, but when I change it to "heavy metal", it doesn't? Both lack citations.

- In the same article, on the column to the right, in the briefing of the album info, under "genre", it says "Heavy metal, doom metal, progressive rock".

- The article points out that "Kerrang! magazine listed the album at No. 48 among the "100 Greatest Heavy Metal Albums of All Time", and provides a reference for it.

- Black Sabbath's Wikipedia page (/wiki/Black_Sabbath) lists them as "Heavy metal", not as rock.

I was simply correcting information that contradicts the rest of the article. I can change it again and provide a citation if you wish (there are thousands of them I could use over the Internet). I just didn't think it was even necessary. This was like seeing Jesus being called the Muslim Messiah or Neil Armstrong being called the first man in space.

tl;dr: False positive. Please, redo my edit,

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.213.103 (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@88.8.213.103: Please read the notice I left on your talk page, it states, "Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive" because this is true, a source and discussion on the article's talk page to gain consensus is needed to change a genre, also, if a band is considered say, heavy metal that does not mean all their music is, and because of that there is often a difference between the bands genre and a album of that band. Cheers, Mlpearc (open channel) 15:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem

Got your message (re: Guns N' Roses pages). Definitely not trying to be disruptive- nor am I engaged in a disagreement with another user. Just trying to provide some additional clarity to a heavily complicated topic [i.e. proper credits for Guns N' Roses albums/releases (literally straight from the official liner notes)- particularly in the Chinese Democracy-era]. Even w/o my edits- pages really starting to reflect very accurately- and w/o bias- which is great. I will cease and desist. Thanks for all that you and your fellow Wiki Admins do for this community! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.214.181 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Red links and List of heavy metal guitarists

Hi, I just read Wikipedia:Red links and found that my current practice of deleting all red links on sight (the link, not the words/terms that are linked) is contrary to Wikipedia editing guidelines. Thanks for including the guideline info.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OnBeyondZebrax: Yes, redlinks are not bad. Happy editing Mlpearc (open channel) 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.