User talk:Albert Mond

License tagging for Image:The Revölution by Night.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Revölution by Night.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Larkin Step

A tag has been placed on Larkin Step, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain website, blog, forum, or other web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:Larkin Step. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thanks. Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 21:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ling861.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ling861.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your recent edits to Talk:Lucas Cruikshank have been reverted as they could be seen to be defamatory or potentially libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Rtphokie (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in fashion

If you would like to add some photos to the image gallery to improve the article, go over to Commons and see if there are any you think should be included in the article. I agree with you that there needs to be mention of adult fashion trends. Fashion doesn't stop at 18.--jeanne (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from WikiProject Emo

Hello!

You may be interested to know that WikiProject Emo has recently undergone a major revitalization. Please visit the project page to see our new look and check out some of our helpful new features, such as the Assessment Department and the Collaboration of the month.

We are currently holding a roll call to help gauge how many active project members we have. Please visit the project's talk page and add your signature to the roll sheet to express your continued interest in the project. Also, if you have not already done so, please take a minute to add your name to the Participants page along with a brief summary of your emo-related interests, so that other project members will be better able to collaborate with you. If you do not add your signature to the roll sheet by March 31, 2009 your name will be moved to our list of inactive members. We may also take the liberty of removing the project userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:WikiProject Emo members. Of course you are free to rejoin the project and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active in the project again.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support WikiProject Emo!

--IllaZilla (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNR

Hey, Albert. We're going to need you back on the GNR page. Apparently more people are against GNR being metal, again. Rockgenre (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's up man?

You hear Libs got busted again with puppets. See[1]. How has it been going in the world of rock and roll? Rockgenre (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you discovered Suck. Another one of those early obscure heavy bands. Elf(one of RJD's old bands) and a little known group called, Iron Claw, also did some of the earliest Black Sabbath covers. Rockgenre (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Noticed Elf did. They also covered Zeppelin, if I'm not mistaken. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yep, "Black Dog." Even though most of Elf's material sounds more like the Faces and the Rolling Stones, Ronnie actually was trying to get make them a little heavier. Iron Claw were a Scottish group who formed around '69. Very scary proto-doom metal, downer rock sound. Rockgenre (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to check them out. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What...

Where did you get the hip-hop from? I know for a fact that they are NOT HIP-HOP or EMO. They are ROCK, who told you that they are hip-hop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyChemicalRomance1302 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote: "It doesn't matter! If you like their music then you like their music. If you don't why bother even arguing?" (Albert Mond (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Darn it, I hate it when I do that. Sometimes I get caught up in other peoples busniess and I usually insert my opinion. I know that wikipeda is not a fan website I just want to tell people that My Chemical Romance ISN"T EMO. Thats like saying Metallica is Rap. Hell no they aren't rap if I were to get on youtube for instance and I put that Metallica is rap, wait a day or two and check the responses, they would probably say something like: " dude what are you on?" or "you must be a retard or something!" I know that I'm arguing right now about mainly me and My Chemical Romance, but I just think that people who think they are emo just really need to listen to their music before they judge them on thier appearnce. I first time I saw them I thought they "looked" emo but I listened to their music, I knew they weren't emo. I know that arguing with you or whatever I'm doing -I'm wasting my time- is useless and you probably don't even care.

So I'll get off your discussion page before I say anything else. ☺

Please excuse my poor grammar. MyChemicalRomance1302 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me?

I'm trying to figure out how to put the wiki project stuff on my page but i cant really do that if i dont know how. could you tell me? please. thanks if you do MyChemicalRomance1302 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Albert Mond. You have new messages at IllaZilla's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: emo - cutters?

I found your comment about emos being cutters quite offensive. That's like saying "Not all black people have big lips and eat watermelon but there is a clear image and stereotype around it." The truth is, very few emos cut. RedBarney (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black people are not a subculture. They're a '[racial group]'. Not all goths wear white makeup, I'm sure. However, because it is an integral part of the imagery associated with that subculture, we include notation of it in the [goth subculture] article. Another example is the [hippie] article. There's an entire section on drug use. Some hippies could be offended. It doesn't matter, as Wiki does not simply cater to the interests of these subcultures. Suicide and self-mutilation have for some time been common themes in 'emo,' and have gotten significant media attention. (Albert Mond (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal

Hello Albert Mond, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you.

your opinion

Hello Albert Mond we need you to opine on the talk page of Led Zeppelin. The sources claim that Led Zeppelin is a hard rock band, but not the parents of the same. The history says the parents of hard rock are Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jeff Beck. The same sources call Led Zeppelin one of the fathers of heavy metal. There is a POV about it that was imposed without consensus. The first paragraph stable as we knew it was amended by a partial view. Reliable and reputable sources are removed and an editor imposes his POV that Led Zeppelin is the progenitor of hard rock. How Led Zeppelin may be the parent hard rock if it existed before them? LZ is the progenitor of metal, not hard rock. Your opinion would be welcome. Have a nice day! Paulotanner (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the allegations made by Paulotanner are absolutely false and bogus. For the true, logical version of what's actually happening, please see the Led Zeppelin talk page. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLACK SABBATH

Don't undo my revision to the Black Sabbath page again, thanks. All you're doing is making the page a complete mess with false information. I'm sick of having to clean up your crap so knock it off. Sabbath are NOT Heavy Metal, as TONI IOMMI HIMSELF STATED THEY ARE HARD/HEAVY ROCK and NOT HEAVY METAL (besides the fact that any moron can hear the difference). If you undo my revision again, I will just revert it back again. Stop thinking you know it all, you do NOT. I was brought up with these bands and know exactly what genres they are. MusicDatabase (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

MusicDatabase

Don't worry Albert. The user above has been blocked for a short while. RG (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crunkcore edits

Instead of "most likely", I suggest you directly check, as I did, the disputed edits against the blog entry it's sourced to. Then to the original edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crunkcore&diff=316564959&oldid=316289777) and the John McDonnell it's attributed to. The criticism is about a specific band and song, not Crunkcore, and it is not immediately clear that the author or blog is notable, much less accurately identified. Until facts match sources and sources meet WP:RS and WP:BLP, the information needs to be stay out of the article. Flowanda | Talk 02:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that whether or not the author is the MP of the same name is questionable (though the Guardian article/blog puts "MP" after his name). In his description at Guardian, he refers to himself as "a freelance journalist who writes for Vice, NME, the Sun and Fader." This is what I checked. The title of the article is "Screamo Meets Crunk," which would imply that it is a criticism of the discussed genre (though it focuses primarily on Brokencyde). Reading it again, though, I did notice that we had apparently put a misleading line in the quote there. (Albert Mond (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Led Zeppelin

So what have you been up to lately Albert? Have you noticed the conflict going on at the Led Zeppelin article right now? A group of editors are removing the metal label without really any reason. Sometime's I wonder why this issue doesn't happen more often with Sabbath related articles. RG (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sabbath are unarguably heavy metal, while Zeppelin are arguably metal and arguably not metal, hence their overrepresentation in the heavy metal article. But Albert doesn't see that. Revan ltrl (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

Since you've contributed regularly at Talk:Emo, I wonder if you might offer your opinion at Talk:List of emo artists#30 Seconds To Mars. I think we're close to a consensus that the source cited is insufficient to make the case that the band is an emo act, and that the act ought to be removed from the list, but I'd like to know what you think since you've offered opinions on emo-related talk pages before. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars

It would be great if you leave a comment here.--Trandingbrights (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Post-hardcore

WikiProject Emo has moved! Because of your participation in the old WikiProject Emo, you are invited to join the WikiProject Post-hardcore, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of post-hardcore and emo music.
Simply click here and add your username to the list to accept. This is a one-time mass message requested by User:Ozhu. 12:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Albert Mond. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Albert Mond. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding consensus at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza

Hey, thanks for pitching in at Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza. More attention on the subject can help the community come to a reasonable decision. But I noticed the input you provided is based on your personal analysis of the subject. This type of input can be counterproductive, because consensus on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and policy-based arguments. In the case of a page move, arguments should be based on what the subject is explicitly called in reliable sources, not what individual editors understand or determine it to be. Personal interpretation or analysis is generally given little to no weight when determining the results of the discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input! I'm not basing this on opinion, but on the applicability of the Genocide Convention's definition of Genocide to the actions of the Israeli military and its political leaders ^[1]. In the International Court of Justice, words of incitement uttered by said leaders were among the evidence admitted upon which an interim ruling was made that genocide was plausible. The actions of the Israeli military (including, but not limited to: killing children, bombing hospitals, and laying siege on a captive population) were considered in this case as well. Beyond this, I'm looking at many of the same sources as everyone else; there is an ample amount of sources which refer to the acts being committed as genocide, and many have been linked in that discussion. Should I elaborate, personally, in that discussion? Albert Mond (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking at what the sources say is best practice. The trick is to make sure our decision isn't influenced by our own decision, coming to conclusions that aren't explicitly stated in the source. Analyzing a definition and determining whether something meets it is original research. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

[1] ttps://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide%20Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

[1]