User talk:SolarFlash/Archive 1

Please block FlightTime from using Wikipedia, his editing reverting is starting to wear thin. Foreverchanges1167 (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Foreverchanges1167 - What article are you even referencing when you say that FlightTime is reverting you repeatedly? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh he is not just doing it to me he is doing it to everyone else here on Wikipedia. He keeps reverting for no reason on purpose and he is a probably trolling Wikipedia. Foreverchanges1167 (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you undid my addition of the 1977 Black Sabbath Greatest Hits because you said "official releases only". This is the LP in question: https://www.discogs.com/Black-Sabbath-Greatest-Hits/release/383038 How is this not an "official" release? It's from NEMS, the same label that they released Sabotage under. Please clarify if you know something I don't. Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I provided my reference which is the recently released movie by Martin Scorsese, Rolling Thunder Review. Rhoads is clearly seen in much of the footage. Furthermore, "Bob Dylan's Thunder Revue, forty years later, photographs by Ken Rega, Published by Ormand Yard Press, published March 2016, also shows photos of Rhoads as a back up musician. Lastly, the Special aired on CBS Hard Rain, Bob Dylan Rolling Thunder Revue, recorded in Fort Collins, CO, on May 16th and 23rd 1976, brought to you by Craig Corporation, and produced by TVTV and Streaming Eagle, also shows footage of Rhoads performing. I am ne and would prefer your help as opposed to a delete. I just want to make sure that one of guitar's greatest legends gets his proper biography, seeing as he died at such a young age. Mstrsofmyhm (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not to war I just want him to get recognized for his work. Mstrsofmyhm (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right, everyone should be recognized for their work. Unfortunately, giving Randy Rhoads credit for another musician's work is both wrong and un-encyclopedic. Please stop this utter nonsense. SolarFlash (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Flash (or can I call you Solar?) earlier today you were kind enough to leave me the following message on my talk page "Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you."

Do you have any specific examples of how I've used the talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics? That would be REALLY helpful, if your goal is to really help someone.

I'm guessing that since you're a self declared expert on Randy Rhoads you're probably monitoring the Quiet Riot page, and made your comment in reference to the comment that I made in answer to another comment. For those not familiar, the exchange went as follows:

"Death of Kevin DuBrow Shouldn't this be updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.17.65 (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He's not still dead? Did he come back to life? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)"

If that is indeed the spark that started all of this, then I apologize and have removed that comment. Not because of what you said to me, simply because I checked the dates and the unsigned user from 2007 was correct, since s/he posted only one day after the discovery of DuBrow's corpse. So they were correct in asking for an update, I suppose. Don't know why they couldn't have done it themselves, but to each his own, eh? FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

OK, since you asked so politely. Here are your expamples: [here's one], [here's another], and [here's another], and [here's yet another]. You gonna stop the harassment now? It isn't going to help you. SolarFlash (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your unsolicited help and the beer. I stand behind all of those entries and any others on the grounds that the pages are called "Talk" which oddly enough, involves talking and then shutting up and listening to someone else talking....you know, like in a conversation? If we wanted it to be called "listen up peons while the elites of the site tell you what to think" then they would have titled it "LISTEN UP PEONS WHILE THE ELITES OF THE SITE TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK".

In other words, there's a lot more give and take on the talk pages. You may not agree with that, but there it is.

I'm out, have a good weekend, unless you'd like to continue. I'm all for peace and not harassing anyone. I don't really see how I'm harassing you when you posted to MY talk page first. If you didn't want to engage with me then you shouldn't have engaged with me, but what the hell, you're one of the elite and I'm just a noob. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret this as a desire to continue. You brought up a couple of points and I have a right to respond, seeing as how you brought them up on my personal talk page.

I left what I firmly believe most editors would agree was a very polite message [1] pointing you towards our reference desk, where questions not directly relating to a particular editing issue can be asked and addressed. You then responded rudely [2] rather than seeing it for what it was, an attempt to be helpful. I have been nothing but polite through this, and I hope you'll decide to move forward. As for the harassment, you took a big step in the direction of incivility with the goat. Notice how I responded to it with a much friendlier tone? SolarFlash (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

If the goat is really what's got the sand where it shouldn't be, then be aware that it is part of Wikilove (little red heart icon just under your notification icon). Being new, I was just trying to show my appreciation, as this application allows. If some people take the goat as hurtful, homophobic, offensive, etc., then perhaps they should focus their efforts at getting it removed. Would you have preferred a kitten? I'm sure that some people would consider a kitten to be racist, rude, offensive, etc. I apologize if you were offended by my goat. I will never again show you my goat. Please do not look at my goat any longer. Do you need a hug?

I think that you're on the right track. We should just both move forward separately. If you don't like what someone writes, then do what I do and don't read their stuff. Thanks again for all of your insightful help. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The comment "You really get my goat" was not intended to show appreciation [3]. Your continued lack of civility says it all. SolarFlash (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh Yeah? Then why the hell does WHO (an upcoming album by The Who which is set to also be released in November 2019) exists and it dosn't come out for another month? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comedyfan74 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect material added to a different article does not justify your edits. I showed you the guideline, please cease the edit warring. SolarFlash (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I’ve been on here for six years never been blocked once. Don’t throw a semi final-tier template my way just because I added “doom metal” to a list of genres on the page (many of which also weren’t sourced within that same section anyway). That’s really unfair ownership-esque behavior. Just saying “can you provide a source?” would’ve been fine, (although I personally don’t see why it would’ve been necessary considering the other genres mostly don’t have citations paired with them to begin with and doom metal was even sourced somewhere else on the page, but ok). Second Skin (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Telling your fellow editors to "fuck off" [4] is not exactly what I'd call a productive way of resolving editing related disputes. Your six years of editing seem to have failed to show you how to be civil. Discussion is a far more constructive option, but to each his own I suppose. Enjoy your day. SolarFlash (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That was not a "fuck off" to anyone in particular, that was a "fuck off" to people sending me templates, not using humanistic mannerisms to understand why I did what I did; essentially treating me like a child. My response to being treated as such is "fuck off". That was the only emotion I could convey in that moment. Second Skin (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

When you revert someone's edit with an edit summary that says only "fuck off", that to me does indeed seem like it's directed at someone in particular. As an editor I abide by the guidelines, and that's all I was doing in this instance. The guidelines are crystal clear in regards to genre additions without discussion and reliable sources, and I followed them. I hope you can understand that. If you'd have taken a quick look at the article's talk page, you'd have seen that this exact topic has been discussed before and there was insufficient support to add the material you attempted to add. SolarFlash (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanx and sorry, I do not recognize references in edit summaries. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Remember that the guidelines encourage you to not just hastily revert an edit if it appears verifiable. According to the guideline you quoted, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If you revert, you're encouraged to make it clear in your edit summary that you believe it's not possible to find a published reliable source, yet in this case it was privided for you and you disregarded it. Cheers. SolarFlash (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't preach to me. Later, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@FlightTime:Easy there, it was intended as a fully civil suggestion and nothing more. Your own adherance to the guidelines is your own concern. SolarFlash (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. We edited the page down a while ago after a discussion on the talk page. Personally I opposed it but unfortunately I was the only one. Out of respect to the consensus which included editors who’ve been on here much longer than you or I and administrators I think it’s important we word things without being overly descriptive. I also now believe it’s probably a good rule in general to simplify things especially in a short synopsis. Regardless of the word count. Just because it’s under 700 words doesn’t mean it’s necessary. You may disagree. But another thing is on Wikipedia we certainly don’t want to editorialize. And even though Tarantino may have mentioned it, the film doesn’t state that Booth is a master of hand to hand combat. Nor does it state that Clem is a Mansonite. Even though, as we know in real life he was. That’s the reason the page is created as it is. If you read further you’ll see much is written about the real life events and people that the film is based on and inspired by. Including Steve Grogan and Cliff Booth. I hope you understand my perspective better now. Thank you. Hope to chat with you more. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guidelines whatsoever that backs your claims. The plot summary is simply "an overview of the film's main events" and "being overly descriptive" (your words to justify reversion) is certainly not an issue with the edits I am attempting to make. And besides, your justification is merely a comment from another user on 9 August 2019 that "the plot should not be added to in great length". A) That is nothing remotely close to a consensus, and B) the article's contents on 9 August 2019 is irrelevant on 27 December 2019, as hundreds of edits have been made in the meantime. Maybe at that time it was too long, maybe it wasn't, but it certainly is not the case now. Users such as yourself need to act collaboratively with other users if you're going to be here, rather than just deciding that it's your sole responsibility to protect an article and decide what's allowed and what's not. Simplify your own edits if you'd like, but leave mine alone. And regarding individual words or points you disagree with, the guidelines are clear that you should not simply revert the totality of an editor's work over a single word or phrase you don't like, you must actually behave like an editor and fix that one word, or discuss. Or leave it be, imagine that. SolarFlash (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project, and you don't have the authority to unilaterally decide what's necessary, my friend. You've been warned several times already about discussing rather than reverting. Discuss first, and revert later if consensus leads that way. Otherwise your behaviour becomes problematic. SolarFlash (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Under the “billing block” section Tropic Aces states the plot section should not be added to. This was in response to editors who were working on the page at the time finalizing a plot synopsis and another who continued to try and change it. Under the “character descriptions” section it is mentioned that the word count of the entire page was too long and even though the section is more focused on other parts of the page it was pointed out how the whole page was overly detailed. After this much editing was done to bring the word count of the entire page down. This included the plot synopsis. It also included the deletion of repetition and saying what needed to be said with as few words as possible. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are confused. I’m not acting unilaterally. I’m acting according to other’s consensus even though I voiced the opposite as my personal opinion is much more aligned with yours. I’m attempting to uphold their consensus and edits to respect Wikipedia. Even though, again, personally I agree more with you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This is nothing remotely close to a consensus, my friend. Two comments are barely a discussion let alone a consensus. Please stop the edit warring or dispute resolution will be sought. Enjoy your day. SolarFlash (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus was reached about the plot synopsis. I think I may be struggling to understand that. So, yes. Discuss first. But it is you who is attempting to make changes. I’m simply attempting to keep it as is. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I meant you are struggling to understand that. Please stop trying to add information, especially things that aren’t mentioned in the film. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

One of us is definitely struggling to understand something. I sincerely hope your most recent block helps you to learn to conform to the guidelines. SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it} 01:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you think one revert is edit warring? It certainly is not especially when you are claiming there is consensus on the talk page and there is no consensus. Leaving two messages on my talk page accusing me of edit warring after only one revert, instead of responding on the article talk page with the link to the consensus you are claiming justifies your initial revert could be seen as escalation on your part. Dartslilly (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dartslilly:In the Black Sabbath article [5], did you not see the notice stating "Do not change "Rock" without an agreement on talk page, whatever your point of view"?. Not only did you disregard the notice, you deleted it entirely. I hope you'll decide to self-revert and initiate discussion before this escalates. SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it} 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you the editor who added this "notice"? If so, you should know that edits on Wikipedia can not be "banned" by an editor adding a "notice" to an article. Dartslilly (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dartslilly: Sorry, but no. I have no idea who added it. I would however strongly advise future discussion before you follow through on your threat to again remove that notice. Dispute resolution will be sought if need be. Enjoy your day. SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it} 18:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a common mistake (saying that an album title is eponymous)...it's the artist that is eponymous, not the other way around:

• Eponym: "one for whom or which something is or is believed to be named"
• Eponymous: "of, relating to, or being the person or thing for whom or which something is named"

To be eponymous is to be the person or thing that some other thing is named after. For example, Richard and Maurice McDonald are the eponymous founders of McDonald's because they are the ones for which the business is named, they are not named after the business. Donald Trump is the eponymous owner of Trump Tower...the tower is named after him; he is not named after the tower. It's the same for so-called "self-titled" albums: The album is named after the artist; the artist is not named after the album. Therefore the artist is the eponymous creator of the album. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

• @IllaZilla: The word "eponymous", as it relates to album titles, means simply that the album is self-titled. It's named after the group or artist. You clearly only half-understand what you're saying and are misinterpreting the definition you yourself provided. It's the album that's eponymous, not the artist. Read this [6] for clarification and please cease edit warring. You were asked to take it to talk [7] and you chose to edit war instead, and that will reflect poorly upon you once admins get involved; either self revert or admin intervention will be sought. SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it} 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've removed that word every time I see it used. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Please, be my guest. I'm getting too close to WP:3RR and am getting ready to start an WP:AN/EW if need be. Help us avoid that ;). SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it}

I hardly think that two reverts constitutes an edit war, or is just cause to full-protect an article, but so be it. The link you have provided to Collins Dictionary fits exactly the definitions I provided from Merriam-Webster as well as the way I used the word in the article: "An eponymous hero or heroine is the character in a play or book whose name is the title of that play or book." So the hero is eponymous because the title derives from their name; the work is not eponymous because it derives its title from the hero. Likewise, for a self-titled album the artist is eponymous because the title of the work derives from their name; the artist is not named after the work. True, in reference to albums "eponymous" has gained a vernacular meaning identical to "self-titled", and some dictionaries reflect that, but I would rather leave the word out entirely than use it backward. Note that Collins specifies that this type of use (giving the example of "Beyoncé's eponymous album") is in British English, and the subject of the article in question is American, not British...since the article is written using American English, I think MOS:ENGVAR would influence using "eponymous" in reference to the author, not the work, but I'm fine with just leaving the word out. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@IllaZilla: Enough. As it relates to the edit in question, "eponym" refers to the band and "eponymous" refers to the album named after the band, which is the subject of the article. We are discussing the album and not the band, thus it is "eponymous". And just so we are crystal clear on your edit warring, when you are asked to take an issue to talk and you instead choose to revert, that is indeed the first volley in an edit war. Enjoy your day. This discussion is over. SolarFlash^{Let's talk about it} 01:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the ping, I moved the barnstar you gave me to the list on my userpage and it pinged you :P - FlightTime (open channel) 20:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting my changes at Conformicide? It was confirmed by Havok this morning that V is the title of their new album and it comes out May 1st, meaning it's not a rumor: [8] [9] [10] [11] MetalDiablo666 (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@MetalDiablo666: When I reverted, in my edit summary I clearly provided you with links to the relevant guidelines regarding the addition of unsourced information pertaining to future events [12]. If you insist on re-adding this material, please add reliable sources to the article which completely verify the claim you are making. Simply stating "It's verified!" in the edit summary will not satisfy the guidelines pertaining to reliable sourcing. You are currently engaging in edit warring and one more revert on your part can quickly result in the loss of editing privileges. Please add reliable sources to verify your claim and attempt to follow the guidelines. Re-read this and this one more time before deciding on further edit warring. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@MetalDiablo666: After taking a look at the proposed sources you provided above:

• Facebook cannot be used as a reliable source, as prior discussion has determined here, here, and here.
• The site "metalinjection.net" solicits blog writers to provide their content [13]. There's nothing at all to indicate a reputation for fact checking nor editorial oversight. Prior discussion established this site as unreliable.
• The site "metaladdicts.com" solicits and publishes user-generated content [14] and thus clearly fails WP:RS.
• The site "theprp.com" solicits and features user-submitted reviews and news [15], thus clearly failing WP:RS

Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines pertaining to reliable sources before continuing the edit warring. Wikipedia is not a personal blog and you can't just add anything and expect it to stand, particularly when you've not added any sources to confirm. And it's always a better option to discuss before reverting, particularly once you've encountered resistance. SolarFlash^Discussion 00:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I would just like to confirm to you that the anonymous user you recently mentioned on User:CambridgeBayWeather's talk page is not me. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying that some random anonymous IP editor just happened to make the identical edit which you were issued a block for, and they did it shortly after the page protection expired? Quite a coincidence, but I believe you. SolarFlash^Discussion 03:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall bear this in mind. But these alterations are directly from what Tony Iommi has told me. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Malcolm Dome: I appreciate that you may have heard these things directly from the article's subject, but this type of material is considered original research and is not allowed. All additions need to be verifiable or they will be reverted. All the best. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't Canadian English correct for Cape Breton Island? Thank you Red Jay (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Red Jay: You appear to be using British English: [16] [17]. That's why I reverted. SolarFlash^Discussion 16:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I used an installed script that is supposed to change it to Canadian English. Red Jay (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think you may have mistakenly added an edit war warning note on my page, Wikipedia:Edit warring describes this as being three or more edits from one editor, however I made one single revert, to re-add a reference that you have previously deleted. I know you reasoned your removal of this source because you couldn't access it. I'm not sure why that may be but this Wayback Machine archive may allow you to access it, if not it refers to "tough guy hardcore" which is a source synonym for heavy hardcore as having "combined circle pits and gang vocals with elements of Metallica-type thrash". This information has also been referenced on the heavy hardcore page itself since its creation. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have had. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: No mistake. You are referring to 3RR, which is the point at which you can be blocked for this behaviour. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version, as you are currently doing, is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable and even if it happens fewer than 3 times. The problem here is that your source is being questioned and you are engaging in edit warring rather than discussing it, as was recommended to you. The problem with your source is that it does not, neither explicitly nor implicitly, state that something called "heavy hardcore" has any relation whatsoever to thrash metal. Hell, your source never even mentions the term "heavy hardcore" even once. The use of an alternate term such as "tough guy hardcore" means the source isn't saying what you claim it's saying. So, that is why I am not allowing your edit to stand. You have to either find a reliable source to confirm what you are saying, let it go, or face sanctions for edit warring. Also, in the future please don't leave comments on my user page, that's not the place for discussion; use this talk page instead. Enjoy your day. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I saw that you deleted my last edit to this talk page in response to your WP:EDITWAR note you place on my own page. While your edit summary to say that it should be on the page's own talk page would be justified if it were a discussion on the edits of the page, that was not the topic of the discussion I had begun, instead being why your accusation of breach of wp:editwar were unjustified. Assuming by your edit that you have nothing else to input on this topic, I'm simply leaving this to clarify to you my reason for discussion here. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: You are leaving your comments on my personal user page, which is inappropriate. I took the liberty of moving your comments to this talk page, which is where discussion should be happening. SolarFlash^Discussion 21:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that was an honest mistake as I didn't realise I was on your user page rather than talk page. But, what's your reason that I was edit warring, as it doesn't fit the definition laid out by Wikipedia:Edit warring, as I only took part in a single revert. Issan Sumisu (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason you were issued a warning about edit warring was because, multiple times, you reverted an edit or attempted to re-add the same material to reflect what you felt the article should say, even after being advised to discuss rather than revert. The source used to justify your behavior did not confirm your point of view, as has already been clearly stated above. I don't believe you've read the discussion you're taking part in, so please get up to speed before responding again. You are incorrect that you only attempted to add the material once, as can be easily proven with these diffs: [18], [19], and [20]. And making the same edit as both an anonymous IP and as a registered user could easily be viewed as sockpuppeting, which will get you banned. You might want to quit while you're ahead. SolarFlash^Discussion 22:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The first revision you referenced is an entirely unrelated edit to me, it was some anonymous IP on a different day. As you can see through this edit, at around 08:00, I edited multiple pages to include the info already referenced on heavy hardcore. You can also verify the IPs if you'd like, it simply isn't my IP. Through this same logic you can see that I didn't revert twice as you claimed, only once, as they were different edits that just so happened to include a similar topic. Also, to say that I hadn't read the discussion I was talking part seems particularly cruel of an allegation, because as is easy to understand, I assumed that your responses were the same as those you had already said and not changed after the fact. However, the source provided clearly refers to "tough guy hardcore", which is a sourced synonym of heavy hardcore, even redirecting back to it. If you think it more accurate the link in the infobox could be that of tough guy hardcore rather than heavy hardcore, however it seems much easier to link directly to the page and save confusion. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's quite a coincidence that an anonymous IP tried to add the very same material to the very same article a single day before you also attempted to add it. I'm sick of this nonsense, so please listen. You cannot use a source that makes no mention of "heavy hardcore" to make any claim whatsoever about "heavy hardcore". Either find a reliable source that explicitly states that it is a fusion genre of thrash metal or stop this nonsense. I'm beyond done with this bullshit. SolarFlash^Discussion 13:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you left me a message about thrash metal again, the source I cited, which you can read here says when describing heavy hardcore: "elements such as thrash metal and hip hop are common". Could you explain why, as stated in your edit summary, you believe this to not relate to heavy hardcore? Thanks Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: Hello again. The issue with your source, once again, is that it is not saying what you seem to think it says. Simply mentioning the words "thrash" and "heavy hardcore" on the same page in a book just won't cut it. You have a book that mentions "heavy hardcore" as being derivative of hardcore music, but it never seems to state that it's also derivative of thrash metal. If I'm wrong, provide the page number. That "heavy hardcore" is derivative of thrash metal is precisely what you are claiming the source confirms, and the book you cited simply does not appear to say that. So, unless you can point me to the page in that book that explicitly confirms your edit, it will continue to be reverted. SolarFlash^Discussion 14:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The books pfd on Google Books doesn't include pages, so I can't provide that to you. However, I linked directly to that when I sent you the link before, and provided the direct quote which you can see. Also, having just seen your edit to the heavy hardcore page itself, you can see by clicking the link, that the page also says "heavy hardcore, brutal hardcore and toughguy" are all synonyms.

@Issan Sumisu: Two sub-genres having "common elements" is quite different than a statement confirming that heavy hardcore is derivative of thrash metal. Your source fails to make such a statement. SolarFlash^Discussion 14:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

In the context, it's definitely not saying there is coincidentally "common elements" between the three in the way you're implying. It's rather clear that its saying the genre is purposely using elements of those genre in its sound. It's not really up for interpretation. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: In describing "heavy hardcore" your source states: "Elements such as thrash metal and hip hop are also common". It takes a fair amount of "interpretation" to twist such a statement into an assertion that heavy hardcore as a sub-genre is a derivative of thrash metal. Again, your source comes nowhere close to proving that heavy hardcore as a sub-genre is derived from thrash metal. It merely implies that there are similarities in terms of style. Style and genre are not interchangeable. Derivative means it's derived or comes from something that came before it, and heavy hardcore is absolutely not derived from thrash metal. If anything, your source is confirming that heavy hardcore is derivative of hardcore. Hardcore and thrash are not the same thing. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up definitions, if you read Template:Infobox music genre it described "derivative" as meaning anything that is influenced by the genre, but not its subgenre. The source states that its influenced by those genre. Heavy hardcore is obviously derived primarily from hardcore, that was never in question as it is well cited and even in the name, the source stating that the genre borrows elements from thrash metal, makes it a dervative. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: "Borrowing elements" absolutely does not mean that heavy hardcore's origins can be traced back directly to thrash metal, unless you can provide a source that clearly states that it does. Your source merely mentions similar elements that are never elaborated upon while strongly implying that heavy hardcore is actually a derivative form of hardcore music and not thrash metal. Find a source that explicitly states that heavy hardcore originated from or is derived directly from thrash metal. That's all. If you can't cite it, maybe it's because it's just your opinion. Your source simply doesn't say what you think it says. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It really sounds like you're confusing definitions there, the source obviously says heavy hardcore is a derivative of hardcore, because it's a subgenre, but a genre can be a subgenre of one thing and a derivative of the other at the same time, they are in no way mutually exclusive. How much more blatant can a source be in saying something is a derivative of something than literally saying it borrows elements from that genre. The source is a textbook example of what you're asking for. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: Find a source that explicitly states that heavy hardcore originated from or is derived directly from thrash metal. SolarFlash^Discussion 22:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

How would you feel about getting a WP:THIRD, because we're clearly just going back and forth here? Also, since there's pretty much no discussion on the heavy hardcore alternate names and you can see that stated in the source, may I revert your revert of that? Issan Sumisu (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Find a source that explicitly states that heavy hardcore originated from or is derived directly from thrash metal. SolarFlash^Discussion 13:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible you could reply to my questions from my last message? Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu: Escalating this would be a waste of everyone's time. So I'd really prefer not doing that. Your source only confirms that "heavy hardcore" is derived from hardcore music. If "heavy hardcore" truly is also derived from thrash metal as you are claiming with your edit, surely you can find more than a single dubious source to confirm it. It should be easy for you, but for some reason it's proving impossible and I think that's pretty telling. Generally, I'm of the opinion that if all you can cite is one source, and that source is so vague that it's called into question, then maybe it's time to find another battle to fight. All that's being asked of you is that you find another source that clearly confirms that your point of view is more than just your point of view. If you are correct, you shouldn't have a problem finding multiple reliable sources to prove it. SolarFlash^Discussion 15:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a waste of time personally, as I believe both this source and the source we previously had a discussion about state plainly and directly that this is true. I don't know how sources could be any more direct than simply saying that the genre takes influence from thrash metal, however as you have a different interpretation I believe this is how it would best be cleared up, and stop any possible future conflicts on the subject. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, you're right, while I have the the advantage, sorry for any trouble this may have caused. I'll provide a different source for that and in response to your revert on the heavy hardcore edit, I'll attach the quote so that it is obvious what point the source is making. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for leaving me a message, I'm not sure why all my edits recently are being removed considering there are a lot of unnamed edit changes with no sources that are doing a lot of harm to some of those articles. I am just trying to improve on the articles, for example the Motley Crue discography are not made up singles as that is the music video section. None of the videos have sources, all I was trying to do is add the missing music videos. Apologies if I'm doing something wrong but my only intention is to improve on the article which is also what I was trying to do with adding the link for the new Mike Tramp album which is not bigger enough to have it's own article but relates to an existing album because they are alternate re-recordings of that same album. Also I was trying to fix a mistake with a poison single because it was released in 1993 not 94 and was adding another missing Poison single which is real but I didn't realise that the source wasn't good enough so I do understand and once again if i'm making mistakes to some edits which I realised with a couple of them I did then I'm happy for them to be corrected but some of these particular edits are all accurate and I'm actually trying to improve on those pages. Thanks Niftey

@Niftey: Due to a lack of time I'm not going to bother going back to look for the specific edit to show you, but I reverted one of your edits because it was unsourced, and the guidelines dictate that anything added without a source can be deleted/reverted at any time for any reason. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material, and in this instance that was you. A quick subsequent check proved that you were adding material to several articles with no citations, and once that determination is made all your edits are likely to be scrutinized. So that's that. Some examples, the poison song (can't remember which song it was) was released as a single in 1994, while you seem to be hung up on the date the album it came from was released, which was 1993. The Tramp album, it sure looks to me like two separate albums, hence the revert. Plus, you tried adding that Tramp album released in (I think) 2009 to the category "Albums released in 2020", which is considered a factual error and that's why you were issued a warning for it. This isn't a blog; you need to add factual material and you need to verify it with reliable sources. Just source your edits reliably and you won't be left wondering why you're being reverted. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@SolarFlash: Okay I will try and make sure I add reliable sources, I'm not hung up on the 94/93 single release it was just an error that's been on that page for a long time and was attempting to fix it but that's fine and the 2020 factual error was only because that was the year that particular album from 2009 was re-released which I thought at the time made sense but like I said I can accept that edit might have come across confusing and that it was an error on my behalf and therefor get a warning for it. I'm not trying to argue about some of my errors that's fine but some of the ones mentioned such as some of the content for the Mike Tramp album are factual but I will make sure I add reliable sources. Thanks.Niftey 11:53, 4 June 2020

@Niftey: I honestly don't know jack shit about this song (or the album or band for that matter), but the source cited in the article [21] states that the single was released in 1994, not 1993. Go with what the sources can verify, even if it differs from what you believe is factual. If you're sure the date is wrong, find a source that confirms it. I took a quick look and found nothing, so 1994 will remain as the release date. And the Tramp album was not re-released. It's a completely new album with new recordings and a new name. So it is a 2020 release. Even if it had been re-released, we always go with the original release date only, while other dates can be mentioned in the prose. And in the future you don't have to ping me when leaving a message on my talk page. I'll be notified regardless. Only ping me if the message is on a different talk page.SolarFlash^Discussion 03:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay no worries, sorry I actually meant re-recorded album not re-released, they are the same songs. I was also trying to look at that reference you mention (spirit of Metal) and it doesn't seem to be working. Sorry for the ping. Thanks.Niftey 14:25, 4 June 2020.

I managed to see the reference and I do believe that's an error as I have seen sources that say 93 which is why it was confusing. This was just a quick one I found: https://ru.rateyourmusic.com/artist/poison but I will just leave it now anyway, it's not that important, just wanted to explain why I attempted to change that one. Thanks.Niftey 14:48, 4 June 2020

Unfortunately rateyourmusic.com is not allowed as a source as it's user-generated content. SolarFlash^Discussion 06:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are well. Might I ask your advice. I would like to add a list of awards won by Tony Iommi to his page. In what section should these be put, please?

Thanks in advance

Best wishes

Malcolm Dome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 09:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Malcolm Dome: I would suggest initiating a discussion on the article's talk page. You're less likely to run into editing disagreements this way, as points of contention receive the opportunity to get worked out ahead of time. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now done that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for leaving me a message, I'm not sure why all my edits recently are being removed considering there are a lot of unnamed edit changes with no sources that are doing a lot of harm to some of those articles. I am just trying to improve on the articles, for example the Motley Crue discography are not made up singles as that is the music video section. None of the videos have sources, all I was trying to do is add the missing music videos. Apologies if I'm doing something wrong but my only intention is to improve on the article which is also what I was trying to do with adding the link for the new Mike Tramp album which is not bigger enough to have it's own article but relates to an existing album because they are alternate re-recordings of that same album. Also I was trying to fix a mistake with a poison single because it was released in 1993 not 94 and was adding another missing Poison single which is real but I didn't realise that the source wasn't good enough so I do understand and once again if i'm making mistakes to some edits which I realised with a couple of them I did then I'm happy for them to be corrected but some of these particular edits are all accurate and I'm actually trying to improve on those pages. Thanks Niftey

@Niftey: Due to a lack of time I'm not going to bother going back to look for the specific edit to show you, but I reverted one of your edits because it was unsourced, and the guidelines dictate that anything added without a source can be deleted/reverted at any time for any reason. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the material, and in this instance that was you. A quick subsequent check proved that you were adding material to several articles with no citations, and once that determination is made all your edits are likely to be scrutinized. So that's that. Some examples, the poison song (can't remember which song it was) was released as a single in 1994, while you seem to be hung up on the date the album it came from was released, which was 1993. The Tramp album, it sure looks to me like two separate albums, hence the revert. Plus, you tried adding that Tramp album released in (I think) 2009 to the category "Albums released in 2020", which is considered a factual error and that's why you were issued a warning for it. This isn't a blog; you need to add factual material and you need to verify it with reliable sources. Just source your edits reliably and you won't be left wondering why you're being reverted. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@SolarFlash: Okay I will try and make sure I add reliable sources, I'm not hung up on the 94/93 single release it was just an error that's been on that page for a long time and was attempting to fix it but that's fine and the 2020 factual error was only because that was the year that particular album from 2009 was re-released which I thought at the time made sense but like I said I can accept that edit might have come across confusing and that it was an error on my behalf and therefor get a warning for it. I'm not trying to argue about some of my errors that's fine but some of the ones mentioned such as some of the content for the Mike Tramp album are factual but I will make sure I add reliable sources. Thanks.Niftey 11:53, 4 June 2020

@Niftey: I honestly don't know jack shit about this song (or the album or band for that matter), but the source cited in the article [22] states that the single was released in 1994, not 1993. Go with what the sources can verify, even if it differs from what you believe is factual. If you're sure the date is wrong, find a source that confirms it. I took a quick look and found nothing, so 1994 will remain as the release date. And the Tramp album was not re-released. It's a completely new album with new recordings and a new name. So it is a 2020 release. Even if it had been re-released, we always go with the original release date only, while other dates can be mentioned in the prose. And in the future you don't have to ping me when leaving a message on my talk page. I'll be notified regardless. Only ping me if the message is on a different talk page.SolarFlash^Discussion 03:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay no worries, sorry I actually meant re-recorded album not re-released, they are the same songs. I was also trying to look at that reference you mention (spirit of Metal) and it doesn't seem to be working. Sorry for the ping. Thanks.Niftey 14:25, 4 June 2020.

I managed to see the reference and I do believe that's an error as I have seen sources that say 93 which is why it was confusing. This was just a quick one I found: https://ru.rateyourmusic.com/artist/poison but I will just leave it now anyway, it's not that important, just wanted to explain why I attempted to change that one. Thanks.Niftey 14:48, 4 June 2020

Unfortunately rateyourmusic.com is not allowed as a source as it's user-generated content. SolarFlash^Discussion 06:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I hope you are well. Might I ask your advice. I would like to add a list of awards won by Tony Iommi to his page. In what section should these be put, please?

Thanks in advance

Best wishes

Malcolm Dome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 09:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Malcolm Dome: I would suggest initiating a discussion on the article's talk page. You're less likely to run into editing disagreements this way, as points of contention receive the opportunity to get worked out ahead of time. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now done that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 10:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

As you can see, you did me wrong. The genres I added (country and disco) are sourced in the article. I agree that disco is not necessary to be mentioned. Her disco era was very brief (late 70s). Twixister wrote in the edit summary, "Added rock to genre since she's referred to the Queen of Rock 'n' Roll. She also released a country album which is cited in the article text. The guideline says preferably use 2 to 4 genres, not only. There are 6 listed in the article for Elvis Presley." --Doovele (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Doovele: Grow up. As made crystal clear in my edit summary, the guidelines state that there are to be no more than four genres listed and they must be cited within the article. I was simply getting the list down to a number supported by the guidelines. But the fact is there are literally zero references to country music as a genre within the prose of the article. I simply don't care and can't be bothered dealing with puerile little assholes like you who can't be bothered learning to play by the rules. People like me exist largely to fix the damage done by people like you who can't tell the difference between an encyclopedia and a blog. SolarFlash^Discussion 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you revert Twixister's edit when there are "zero references to country music as a genre"? You should treat all users equally. Right, country is not mentioned as a genre. But there is a reference to Turner's country album Tina Turns the Country On!. --Doovele (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it isn't worth the aggravation, that's why. Now go find someone else to annoy. SolarFlash^Discussion 17:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi SolarFlash, I see you often cleaning out bad edits. Shocked to see you doing one of mine - but I see why, yet don't understand how it happened. I was undoing an un-cited genre change at thrash metal by a constant, revolving IPs, editor who's been at this for some time (I see you PP'd nu metal mostly due to this person). But strangely, my undo seems to have un-done an edit that person did clearing out their previous bad edit. I must have missed something as it put back the un-cited genre changes. The ones you saw. 😟 Not exactly sure how this occurred. Sorry to have wasted your time. Thanks for what you do here! 👍 – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

@72.234.220.38: Yeah, I knew that's what happened. No worries mate. SolarFlash^Discussion 17:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, you've been doing this for a while, so hoped you'd see that the edit was the exact opposite of what the edit-summery said it was. Oh, and I gave you undo credit for adding pp-protected to nu metal, it was Ad Orientem who finally was fed up. I note that you, Binksternet, Materialscientist and others have been diligently reverting the New Zealand based "revolving IPs, editor's" edits over a multitude of articles for almost a year now (first time I noticed them, 24 June 2019: Special:Contributions/189.59.84.64). I hope you editors are getting an anniversary gift. 😉 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Ooops, way over a year: January 2019 Special:Contributions/139.180.67.225 – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

My edits were constructive. The photo I deleted in my edit is not of the person that it says it is, which is misinformation. You might have all day to puppyguard pages and revert constructive edits, not all of us have the time to come to your talk page and see if it's ok with you (you've reverted my edits twice, you are the one who needs to explain why the edit was unconstructive), some of us do other things than powertrip on wikipedia. maybe do something useful instead.

Ps you could have been polite dropped out the threat and i would have been polite

As I advised you in my edit summary, you need to open a discussion on the article's talk page and actually explain yourself. Make a case, with reliable sources to confirm what you're saying. Otherwise, it's unconstructive and you'll get reverted every time. SolarFlash^Discussion 21:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

OK anonymous IP editor, I've had some time to do some research on the credibility of this photo, and I can now safely say that you are beyond a doubt trolling us and wasting everyone's time. Including your own. Are you the same editor who's literally been at this for years? You've wasted enough of our time here and it's going to stop today. So, first you tried to claim that the MacAskill photo is actually "a photo of general Merideth, a 6 foot 7 confederate general". Well, that was easily disproven, as Solomon Meredith is clearly a different man entirely. This exact photo of MacAskill, the one you claim isn't him, is prominently featured on the website for the official Angus MacAskill Museum, which is owned and managed by the MacAskill family (simply scroll down a little bit to see it [23]), as well as on the sign in front of the actual museum [24]. The coup de grace, this exact photo is seen on Angus MacAskill's actual gravesite [25]. I'm left with no other option but to state without fear of contradiction that you are completely full of shit. Full. Of. Shit. SolarFlash^Discussion 16:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SolarFlash! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 17:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll definitely check that out. SolarFlash^Discussion 19:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, you seem like an editor who may know this: is Chronicles of Chaos a reliable source (especially for reviews)? Thanks for your help. Caro7200 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Ha, sorry, should have looked first...I had actually never seen it used... Caro7200 (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: Opinions vary on this site's reliability. It's on the list of approved sources though, so it can be used. Per prior discussion, just be careful you're using it to cite facts as opposed to a reviewer's personal opinion. SolarFlash^Discussion 21:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for your help. Caro7200 (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Any time. SolarFlash^Discussion 21:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I recieved your message regarding the Rock Never Stops edit for 1997. I was at that tour and that's what they called it. It was the very first one. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssjesus (talk • contribs) 23:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ssjesus: Sounds like a hell of a show. Are you able to add a reliable source to confirm the info you added? Otherwise it may have to be reverted. SolarFlash^Discussion 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey, noticed that you had worked on this recently. Most of the refs I saw today had a 1993 release date...is this a situation where it was released earlier in Canada (I'm in Indiana)? Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Caro7200: I know, there are sources stating 1993 and others stating 1992 so it's hard to nail it down. The zunior.com source I cited is the band's current label and is owned by a former member of the band, so I feel that one is likely the most reliable and it says '92. SolarFlash^Discussion 02:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Older release dates are annoying...I edited an early '90s album article some months ago, and three different RS had three different years for the release... Caro7200 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Since I'm here: What's another reliable Canadian album source, besides Exclaim!?. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are not many, sorry. Check the reliable sources list, there may be something there. SolarFlash^Discussion 03:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, what is the problem? Cross Purposes was official released first in the world by Toshiba-EMI on January 26, 1994(officially) but many shops were selling them on the 25th. This is known as a Nippon Sekou Hatsubai. Roughly translated to "Sold first in Japan" or "Advance release in Japan"

This was released in other parts of the world on January 30th

Hello @240D:1A:8AF:4D00:A518:42B9:B098:E781: Well, the problem is you didn't source your edits. As an encyclopedia, we require reliable sources as proof of anything being added. SolarFlash^Discussion 17:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure what is going on and why there is a problem. The changes I have tried to make are not controversial at all. I do not want to get into any argument with your good self. I have just added in the info that Iommi is visiting professor at Coventry University with a reference. I hope this is OK. Best wishes and thanks. Malcolm Dome — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's fantastic. But please, note that the edit summary is not the place to cite your sources. Edit warring and socking in particular will get you banned, so if you want some free advice I'd recommend you stop that nonsense. SolarFlash^Discussion 14:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I shall refrain from citing a reference in the summary. One question: I altered the part about Iommi co-producing Lita Ford's album to read: 'There are reports that...' so that the next sentence when she denied it flowed sensibly. Altering it back now makes it seem as if it's a fact he co-produced it, and therefore the Lita Ford sentence now follows on in a disjointed manner. If that's the way you want it, then fine. I just wanted to point out the grammatical confusion. Your call entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 16:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Malcolm Dome: If he wasn't involved in production of that album, prove it. We have multiple reliable sources saying that he did in fact co-produce the album, and that satisfies the guidelines and it satisfies me. If the sources say it's so, its so, and thus a statement such as "There are reports that..." is quite unnecessary. Ford commenting on an ex-lover's contributions to her career, a man who she admits to having "bad blood" with, renders her point-of-view as extremely biased, and it should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't feel the wording is the least bit "disjointed" at all. If the current wording "makes it seem as if it's a fact he co-produced it", there's a reason for that, and a good reason: that's precisely what the sources say. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, I am not going to get into any row over this with you. Leave it as it is. All I would say is that your comment on Lita Ford being biased is unfair. But at least her view is represented here, so that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm Dome (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Malcolm Dome: It's a bit late... you've already started a row by continually refusing to stick to the guidelines. Hopefully you've learned something today. You've wasted too much of my time already today. SolarFlash^Discussion 18:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I rolled back your comments on Teddy Hastings' talk page by mistake, but undid my changes as soon as I realized it. It wasn't deliberate. Mr. Darcy talk 01:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrDarcy: Not a problem my friend. SolarFlash^Discussion 01:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You mistakenly reverted my edit and I have now re-reverted. I'm sure that you can clearly see that Iommi's first marriage was from 1973 to 1976 which certainly is not "some eight years". Thx 220.235.97.3 (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@220.235.97.3: All apologies. SolarFlash^Discussion 05:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies accepted; we are all children of the sea. 220.235.97.3 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2020 (UTC)