User talk:Bryce Carmony

Just a little template for you.

Hello, Bryce Carmony. You have new messages at Aladdin Sane's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm really unclear about what, if anything, the ping template does. Oh, well. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk of the town

In case you wondered, the above is a song reference from my generation. From the disam page: "Talk of the Town", a 1980 song by The Pretenders.

I didn't really mean it at first, but you are being discussed at "I mentioned you as a contrary reference on my User talk page.". The "you" in the title refers to Rjensen, not Bryce Carmony. The discussion, however, does, as it descends from the ANI. As I might have said there, "Shocking, just shocking" (a reference to the movie Casablanca), and meant both sardonically and in a diminutive sense, as was the original quote. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flame of Peace

Still want to delete?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources for the article are either 1-primary sources from the topic, or 2 - non reliable. i haven't changed my mind on the content. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Melee

There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! --Bananasoldier (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Bryce Carmony. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in

Hi Bryce! I just wanted to check in. How have things been going for you since our discussion? I must say, I'm impressed with your continued commitment to the 'Pedia, and professional demeanor on your user page. I don't doubt that you're an excellent editor, so I want to make sure that nothing has turned you off of editing. Do you feel any less stressed by other editors? Or do you feel like hitting your head against the wall at present? ;-) – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 01:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles

The Beatles were a band. See [1] and please stop blindly reverting. Calidum 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing articles in userspace instead of the articles talk page is an attempt to circumvent consensus, if you have a disagreement about an article you can write about it in the articles talk page.Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus has been to use "were" forever. The only one undermining anything is you. The fact that you didn't even respond to the substance of my comment shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Calidum 04:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation of the beatles being more than one band? if you do I'd love to add it to the article if not you are creating original research which is problematic. NPOV requires that we don't give undue weight to a fringe theory that the Beatles are multiple bands and NPOV is immune from consensus.Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm from England and what we're debating here is the difference between British English and American English. We are - as the old saying goes - peoples divided by a common language. I believe the consensus is that British bands "are" and American bands "is" on Wikipedia. In England we wouldn't say the Beatles "was", we would say the Beatles "were". Similarly, we wouldn't say Coldplay "is a band", we would say Coldplay "are a band" because Coldplay constitutes more than one person. Same with Genesis. Hope that helps. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it got sorted out at The Beatles but please don't take it too far in the other direction. Generally in the U.S., the verb used with sports teams follows the nominal number of the team's name - so, Washington Redskins "are", but Minnesota Wild "is". See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Plurals. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Comparison of American and British English Despite exceptions such as usage in The New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular.[19] Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Wikipedia Manual of Style concerning plurals - which specifically addresses this precise point - should determine how plurals are treated in Wikipedia articles. Don't start (another) edit war. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Jazz was Are before you changed it so the "war" was actually started by you. check your history on the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made precisely 2 edits to that page - at least since 2013 - and both of them were to revert your "are" to "is". I'm afraid you are mistaken on that count. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Tunnel boom. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Carrying on with your war on singular and plural usage by making a further clumsy and unwarranted edit - while the matter is under discussion at ANI - is clearly deliberately disruptive. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I have proposed at ANI that you be blocked. BethNaught (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at A II Z, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look through your contributions. Frankly, you seem to go right up to the line of being blatantly disruptive without ever crossing it. In particular, you seem to get tied up in the sort of thing documented at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Wording, which should give you a good indication that what you frequently you argue over is not really that important. I don't think you're at the level of causing blatant and imminent disruption to warrant a block, but I will support the community's decision to block you, which means you have some serious work to do now if you are to avoid losing your editing privileges. I would start by apologising to the people mentioned in this section and admit that you got over-heated and argued about things that weren't important - that would be a start to regaining some respect. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to cause an edit war.what confuses me is why people simply refuse to use article talk pages. I have people who (evidently) disagree with me but instead of posting why they disagree in the article talk page instead they go to ANI or something else. The talk page process works. I'm not one to disagree with consensus but I am one to seek it. the Utah Jazz were "Are" for years before I got involved now that I say it should be "are" there are threats of blocks. I think edits like AndyJSmith are simply out with a personal grudge. since he had no problem with the wording Are until now. I'm sorry if anyones feelings were hurt by me using English conventions to make subjects and verbs agree. If you disagree with a particular edit use the talk page would be my suggestion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing over "are" and "is"

Please stop your repeated disruptive editing over "are" and "is" in connection with bands. Regardless of what you think on this matter Wikipedia's own Manual of Style is quite clear on this issue. Here is the relevant section at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bryce_Carmony&action=edit&section=new :

"Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Seahawks are the champions, with one major exception: in American English, the United States is almost universally used with a singular verb. Although the construction the United States are was more common early in the history of the country, as the singular federal government exercised more authority and a singular national identity developed (especially following the American Civil War) it became standard to treat the United States as a singular noun."

It is evident, therefore, that "The Beach Boys are" is correct grammar in American English. Afterwriting (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the title of a single entity is singular in English, let me help you out. The united nations is a thing. The grapes of wrath is a book. The son's of anarchy is a biker gang. Guns n Roses is a band. US Marshals is a law enforcement agency. League of Legends is a video game. and yes The Carpenters is a band. If you ask yourself this simple question you say 1st - Is the title of the band a title? yes, secondly. Is the band a single entity? yes. Then we use the singular was not the plural were. the majority of bands even those in the plural use the correct is/was only the minority have editors who are using this incorrectly. I get that it sounds counter intuitive but it is correct. in AmE the titles of Singular entities use the singular verb. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are still missing the point. As the Manual of Style makes clear, when the name of a band or a sporting team includes a plural noun, such as "Eagles", then it is then not treated as a single entity (a band or team) but as a plural entity (a number of people). This principle is not difficult to understand. Afterwriting (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The example is reffering to individual members, which is why they said champions. The individual seahawk players are the individual champions. The example does not , and would not say that the Seahawks are a Franchise owned by Paul Allen. Since Paul Allen does not own the individual players, he owns the entity as a whole. If we are referring to the beach boys as individuals we say are. But if we are referring to the title of their band like the first sentence of the article about that band is. We say is. Many bands do this (The Black Eyed Peas, the Wall Flowers, Guns and Roses, etc) It might confuse you but it's sound grammar.

You are mistaken and are indulging in "invincible ignorance" in your inability to understand why you are mistaken. Afterwriting (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you would say "The Seahawks are a trademark" you would truly in your heart of hearts write that. "The Beatles are a trademark". You are incapable of understanding that the singular entity of the band =/= the individual members of the band at all times. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant argument. In these examples you are referring to the words "The Seahawks" and "The Beatles" and not to the collective nouns. Different principle, different grammar. Should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so the aritcle "Bread (band)" is about the band bread but the article "the Carpenters" is about the members of the band the carpenters. That makes TOTAL sense. Keep in mind that when an article title can be singular or plural that the title of the article is singular per WP:SINGULAR. if the carpenters of the article is the singular carpenters we're talking about the band not the members of the band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This says it all about your erroneous arguments : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoKWf6pLs8 Afterwriting (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument that titles are singular is erroneous? Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The real issue, the one you keep missing the point of, is not about "singular" or "plural" nouns but about "collective nouns". Afterwriting (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is not a collective noun, it's the title of a singular entity. per WP:Title titles should be singular, so where we have the choice we chose the singular title over the collective noun. the article "The Cranberries" is a singular title for the band... you guessed it... the Cranberries. if you want to make an exception for bands to be plural titles you can argue it in the WP page but I don't think consensus will follow that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add mny voice to the requests for Bryce Carmony to stop changing "were" to "was" or "are" to "is" in band articles. As noted by Afterwriting, these group names are collective nouns and so the use of "was" or "is" in this case is grammatically incorrect. This is just basic English grammar for heaven's sake! In addition, I would ask that Bryce Carmony go back through the large number of articles that you've altered in this way over the past few days and revert your edits back to the grammatically correct form. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my above response, band names like "The Byrds" are the name of a band - a singular entity - but still a collective noun for that particular group of musicians. If you take a look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you'll see that "The Byrds are..." or "The Byrds were" is correct, in both American English and British English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun and a collective noun, which "Byrds" is, then "are" or "were" is grammatically correct. Really though, this is just common sense and it's also supported by the style guides of countless other print or online music publications. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're confused. just because something can be a collective noun doesn't mean that it always is. Pop-tarts is a brand of food = Title of Singular Entity. Pop tarts are delicious! = Collective noun of al the worlds pop-tarts. So the question is what is the title of the article? is the title of the article the singular title of the entity or is it the collective noun? and WP:Titles informs us that it is preferable that it be the singular entity. so when we refer to the band we are referring to the title of the singular entity not the collective noun. Which is why we don't say "Pop-tarts are a brand" or "The cranberries are a band"Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Titles says we shouldn't use the collective noun as the title and use the singular entity. if you have a problem with that policy you can propose a change to that policy, you can't cherry pick what policies you will and will not follow. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...I'm not cherry picking and you're wrong about the correct use of "was" or "is" with regards to this. Whether the article title is a singular entity or the collective noun is irrelevant, it's the use of "was" or "is" in the context of the opening sentence of the article, in which the band is clearly a collective noun, that is in dispute. But regardless of that, I've just seen this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bryce.C2.A0Carmony.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I don't think there's much more to say here. You're a disruptive editor who will not accept editor consensus or repeated warnings. Therefore, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. I'll let the admins make a decision about this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't. In BrE all bands are always collective nounds. "Supertramp are a band" not "is a band" because in English we always use the collective noun for a band. in AmE we don't HAVE to use the collective noun for a band. we can treat it as a singular entity (which the title and subsequently introduction line do) Would you argue that a band like... "Bread" be "Bread are a band" since you insist on treating bands as collective nouns. or do you only sometimes insist on bands to be collective nouns? if so, why? Why should we sometimes treat a band as a collective noun and sometimes not treat it when both scenarios are being introduced as the topic of the article? so some topics are about the bands? and some are about the individual band members? makes zero sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent comments only further demonstrate your invincible ignorance on this question. If a band's name is both a plural noun and a collective noun then it is grammatically correct to use "were" and "are" etc. Which part of this straightforward grammatical principle don't you understand? Your special pleading analogy with Pop Tarts is erroneous. On this issue you are not properly informed or competent. Afterwriting (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you write "AC/DC are a band" "Metalica are a band" "Styx are a band" "Journey are a band" etc? If you are arguing that all bands must all be treated as collective verbs always then let me know. or are you saying "I want to only treat bands as collective nouns sometimes depending on my arbitrary mood" let me know. WP:Titles promotes my posiion, where as you have no policy basis to argue for saying "are a band" when the name of the band is a title of a singular unit. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've just proven my point again about your invincible ignorance. These band names are not BOTH plural nouns and collective nouns. Therefore, in American English, the verb forms of "were" and "are" would not be correct (but can be in British English) unlike plural and collective names such as "Eagles" and "Carpenters". Your repeated inability to understand these obvious distinctions is disturbing. Afterwriting (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's simplify this. do you believe that a title for a singular entity should use the singular verb? yes or no. we'll take this one step at a time and find where the disconnect is.Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

October 2015: WP:CBAN Blocked

Per this discussion, you have been indefinitely ~~banned~~ blocked from editing. The consensus here is that your efforts constitute disruptive editing Indefinite does not mean infinitely, but I would suggest you wait at least a year before appealing this block ~~and ban~~, and strongly suggest you not attempt a return in under 6 months. Hopefully the time away and some perspective will provide some insight on the collaborative nature of the project. You can read ~~WP:UNBAN~~ WP:GAB and UNBLOCK for details. — Ched : ? 05:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) edited for accuracy — Ched : ? 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New entry for your coffee table book category

Hi Bryce,

Representing several fan club members of West Coast Midnight Run™ we thought you may want to add the title of the publication to your Coffee Table Book page. The publication is along the lines of an art book/coffee table book with strong qualities influenced by lifestyle and entertainment magazines. We invite you to look them up and contact their editors for more information if they qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A886:7500:9842:2D27:82F4:E21C (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]