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 blocked me from editing because I removed a genre "without a source" (and we are talking about the Just Like You by Three Days Grace one). Here is the thing though, I don't NEED a source because there was already a source saying it's a nu metal song, not a source for post grunge.
@StockingFan15: First of all, I'm not an Administrator so I can not block anyone. My point had nothing to do with "reliable sources", my concern is that any change to genres require consensus, doing so w/o consensus is considered disruptive, which many editors have already warned you about, so looking at your editing history and lack of concern with the warnings given to you, you got yourself blocked. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
I would like to know why my edit on Zahi Hawass’ page has been removed, citing poorly sourced material, and defamation.
It is not contentious that he refused to conduct this debate, it is referenced with a video of him refusing to conduct this debate (both published and reliable). It is relevant to the matter at hand (conflicts with other archaeologists), and it is most certainly not defamation if the words can be reliably attributed to him. The burden of evidence falls on the editor, and I would like to know how I have fallen short of this? Georgeadm (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, my edit has ultimately been removed because of JoeRoe’s personal distaste for Graham Hancock. Describing a bestselling author with numerous supporters with evidence from a variety of academic disciplines, as a ‘crank’, is unjustifiable as neutral editing.
Secondly, could you please refer me to any area defining reasonable sources for a BLP that excludes a YouTube video of the subject making the comments described? I feel there is a very significant side to this debate that is not being represented on political grounds, and I am yet to be provided with a valid reason for the removal of my changes. Georgeadm (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion 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.
The Eagles
Contrary to what you believe, it is correct in American English to use "are" when referring to bands. It has also been the accepted use in the article. Yahboo (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
Hello, when you were reverting my bad edits you reverted a link I made in Hellbastard for the opening genre. The sentence was: Hellbastard was a heavy band, and I improved it too: Hellbastard is a heavy metal band. I’m considering reverting that edit, is that alright? Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one will answer me though. You are currently the only one that knows of this. That’s why I’m asking for your opinion on what to put in the openening sentence.
The discussion on the existence of RABM is getting to a close, share your opinions and vote, if you could.
The discussion 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.
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
Hey! I have some question to you.
I know Rock n roll was developed in USA, but the 'Rock' this popular music genre was developed in UK because the brits make this genre prefect. However,you said that both development of rock n roll and rock music were developed by USA first. Why that?
The discussion 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.
I have closed your DRN report of the Best Known for IP as not a content dispute for DRN. As I noted in my close, this is a well-known disruptive editor who should be reverted and reported. Revert the edits, request semi-protection of the page, and report the IP to AIV, the vandalism noticeboard, noting that it is the Best Known for IP. (It doesn't matter that they may be right in any specific case that "best known for" is inappropriate. The whole behavior of this editor is inappropriate and is dealt with as a vandal.) Thank you for calling attention to this editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A message from 208.44.170.115 about the moe. (band) page
This discussion/section is closed
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
I was only looking for unbiased views. It had nothing to do with with I thought they would think. Yes, I asked for support, and presented information to people based on the rules of Wikipedia. There is absolutely nothing wrong woth that.
208.44.170.115 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for people to review the rules and vote accordingly. It seems that the aforementioned rules seem to support using the band's correct name for the article. I chose random, unassociated people. It seems that I may have even stacked the deck against myself, as no one has read the WP rules that were posted. Cheers! 208.44.170.115 (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to the wiki page on canvassing, you have dealt with the issue and it's over. I was unaware of this rule at the time, and since have not posted anything on anyone's page. It is over. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion 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.
The article mentions him touring with the Ataris and it also mentions him playing in two other bands (this one however does not have a source). I guess what the 'years active section' is actually referring to is the film career, but despite that, it doesn't appear to count his music career which is currently ongoing, so I don't know if it should be left that way (maybe with an explanation saying that it's referring to his film career) or just put present to show he's still active (just not in film or television anymore).--73.240.105.138 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
The discussion 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.
Hi, thank you for your message on my edit of the page of Freddie Mercury. First of all I'd just like to point out that despite having an account for a while, I've never actually used the talk feature so if I've done anything wrong, I apologise in advance. My edit on the Freddie Mercury article was not intended to be a test. I made the edit as his legal full name was Frederick Mercury. Using almost every other article I have seen on Wikipedia as a basis, I changed it to his full name. This has been something I have been looking at for a while, as I made a similar edit to the same page several months ago where it appeared to be fine until recently when it was changed. I hope that I have explained my point well, please let me know if I haven't made it clear enough or if you believe that your reversal of the page should still stand. Thanks for reading my message.
--Braveb1rd PokeMC (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Braveb1rd PokeMC: You're fine. After looking through the page history, it seems it got mixed up with the way it used to read Frederick "Freddie" Mercury someone removed Frederick not knowing that should of not been done. The correct edit should of been removing Freddie per WP:NICKNAME. All's good now. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel)23:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go Your Own Way
I've never needed a consensus on any previous song article I've edited and left a reference for regarding genres, so why the consensus on this one?
That said, iTunes (and similar) is not a reliable source for genres as it is added by an algorithm and are not subject to editorial oversight. - SummerPhDv2.002:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SummerPhdV2.0: Not only do I respectfully disagree with that statement, but I find it a little silly to think that the genre of a song is added by an algorithm on there. Most, if not all descriptions for songs on the site appear unique in structure and I simply find it hard not to believe that editor oversight is observed. Nonstopmaximum (talk) 2:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
@Nonstopmaximum: Since you find this silly, regardless two editors are challenging the reliability of your sources, therefore your next avenue is to start a discussion on the article's talk page and seek consensus, which is your best chance, 98% of the time community consensus trumps policy/guidelines on Wikipedia. Good luck. - FlightTime (open channel)09:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing the problem with the Alan Clark photo. Probably the simplest way forward would be if some admin could speedy delete and then I could upload an unrotated version. Thanks! AnOpenMedium (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your edit on the Identity Evropa talk page [1] because your archival resulted in a series of edits which removed the table of contents. It is a fairly long talk page so it has become more tedious to navigate now. I should have included this in my original summary, no mean to cause confusion. Barbarossa139 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
Why have you warned me for edit-warring and not Beyond My Ken when we have both made two reverts? I am trying to remove content added to the article about the most notorious anti-semitic forgery in history by an editor who was given an indefinite block today partly for edits which show " a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism" [2],Beyond My Ken insists on keeping these additions in.Smeat75 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Smeat75: I'm sorry, but you misrepresent my position. I take no stance on the edits you reverted, I simply insist that you justify their removal on the basis that they do not improve the article, or that they violated policy, or that they otherwise degraded the article. You cannot remove edits simply because the editor who made them has been blocked, your revert must in itself be justified on the talk page. So far, you have not done that. If you do adequately explain why those edits should be removed, that will be a different story. I'm waiting for you to do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"they do not improve the article" because they were written by an editor blocked partly on the basis of edits that demonstrate "" a strong undercurrent of anti-semitism".Smeat75 (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion 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.
"Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rate Your Music, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)"
My edit was cited. The citation didn't change from what it was, it links to a constantly updating list. @FlightTime:
Hey! I have some question to you. I know Rock n roll was developed in USA, but the 'Rock' this popular music genre was developed in UK because the brits make this genre prefect. However,you said that both development of rock n roll and rock music were developed by USA first. Why that?
I wanted to respond to your edit summary, because I'm very careful about other people's talkpage comments. This edit [3] was probably a better way to fix the error (and I'll confess I didn't think of the reflist template), but my edit fell within the acceptable range of "Fixing format errors" that allows for editing other's talkpage comments. Grandpallama (talk) 11:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
Liviut11101 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)@FlightTime: Hi FlightTime, I was simply quoting what's currently being published by Wikipedia. As I have mentioned, I find Wikipedia difficult to use. I have no idea what's private and public on those talk pages. Can this message be seen by everyone or just by you. My private information has become very important since a member of my family has become a victim of identity fraud.[reply]
WP:AGF would favor Hanlon's razor. Regular editors are tech proficient, but if any of the four other people in the room with me tried to leave this message:
two would manage click "edit page" instead of editing the specific section and would not indent or sign until instructed on how to do so. One (not sure which) would probably put new sections at the top of talk pages (though putting replies at the bottom) until told to put them at the bottom.
one of them would click "new section" for each response, never signing posts except for those immediately in response to warnings to do so, and probably lose every other post to the "show preview" button.
one of them replace your whole talk page with one or two lines vaguely related to the topic at hand before segueing into a paragraph of general conversation about y'all's shared childhood experiences in 1930s Lexington, South Carolina (nevermind your own age or place of origin), before finally ending with a two-page prayer... and I'd say there's equal chances he'd either actually hit "publish changes," or hit "show preview" and close the browser, or hit "show changes" and close the browser, or just close the browser, or sit there waiting for your response to spontaneously appear in the edit window.
The discussion 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.
Hello User:FlightTime, you reverted my edits on Three Dog Night's page, in which I linked Jay Gruska to his Wikipedia article. Could you let me know why you did that? I did a bit of research to make sure that he was truly the same guy as in the Wikipedia article, and he made a post on his website acknowledging his contributions to the band, so I don't see a problem. Thank you. TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
TheBBQbaconcheddar (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@William Sherman, Esq.: Wikipedia has a phrase for newcomers like you Troll. If you don't like what experienced editors say to you, maybe you should find another place to spend your time.l Cheers,
In August 2017, you reverted my change to the "Loverboy" page. Here is my source, which states that the song 'Heaven In Your Eyes' peaked at #12 on the U.S. Billboard Charts: https://www.billboard.com/music/loverboy
I was listening to "Brown Street" by Joe Zawinul, wiki'd Victor & didn't see it listed on the page, so I added it & found others on AllMusic.com. What counts as a good source? AllMusic.com? Amazon? etc?
The following discussion/section 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 discussion/section.
You commented on my page, saying this lacked evidence of permssion. And yet the image description on its page says "Original sketch of a silkhenge structure, by moi." In other words, I drew it myself. I also tagged it "own work" and released it GFDL. How much more permissiony could it get? — Kaz (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"moi" is the french word for "me". "Pour moi" is a VERY well-known phrase among educated speakers of English, moi is almost a loan word. Good grief, Miss Piggy, a muppet in children's shows and movies, uses the term routinely. Perhaps you should have bothered to check into it. Or should work on learning more about how people communicate. And, as I said, it was already tagged "own work"/"GFDL" that should have been sufficient. — Kaz (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion 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.
Hello, On the article RMS Lusitania I didn't "just" remove the links because 1)- the article was tagged since 2015 so I had no idea we were all of a sudden in a rush. 2)- It is easier to edit the page and go through the list to see if some can be used in the article or be exchanged.
To answer your ping, you can see my response to Widr here, but the short is: I do not consider "genre warring" (an essay basically made up by a WikiProject that does not have community consensus) as a reason to block absent actual edit warring, and I decline all reports to AIV on it unless there has been an actual behavioral policy violation, which in the majority of cases there hasn't been. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should be blocked at all in most cases. There is absolutely no policy-based reason to block a "genre warrior" absent repeated ignoring of consensus and actually trying to engage them. The best policy here is to revert and move on, or even better, find a source to source the change. Genre-warring is fundementally a content dispute, and administrative action is not warranted in content disputes unless it becomes actively disruptive. I *have* made these blocks before, but only after trying to engage with someone and see why they are doing it, and they ignored the discussion.My suggestion is to wait until they actually edit war and then take them to ANEW. That's where we deal with people reverting against consensus, not AIV. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2018 (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.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}