User talk:Cheeser1/Music Archive

NOTICE: This page is an archive! Modifications to this page will be reverted. Please go to my main talk page to post new messages, when necessary. Issues in this archive are generally more-or-less resolved.

Conservative Punk

• I really think this article needs to go up for another VFD. I tried nominating it but the discussion page just links to the discussion of the previous VFD. If you know how to nominate for a second VFD then it should be done.Tombride 21:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Punk 2

Great changes. :) Madangry 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Much the Same / Christian punk

Gunner, a Christian, was the sole writer for the first full-length CD (Quitters Never Win and one of the main writers for the second. His Christianity can be seen in the lyrics for "Wish", for example:

I'll follow through with all these claims I never cease to make
A promise to myself is one I promise to break
But when I have You by my side then I can do what's right
I'll become the co-pilot and You control this flight

There's also an EP of theirs, I guess, which I haven't heard. This is an excerpt I've found from Moto, which is on that:

If I believe a savior is the only thing they need
And I hid it between the metaphors what kind of person would Ibe?
Is it that important that the crowd thinks we're the best
What is the benefit in the end?
I'm just trying to show them all that there's a better way
How can I do that if i veil what I say?
No one will ever silence me!

And from Crying Wolf, on that same EP:

So I'll say it again, for what must be the thousandth time
I know I've sinned against you and that's not another line
You're the only one who knows what's inside my feeble heart
I repent for it once again, once again a brand new start

Their latest CD isn't nearly as explicit about Christianity, but "Skeletons" has this first verse:

Get on your knees, beg for forgiveness, you broke everything and you can't fix it
But you will not admit that you're no saint, a drunk, you steal, you lie
And with a loss of grace you realize you're setting yourself up to take a fall

Let me know what you think. I'll probably add Much the Same back again soon, unless you're still opposed and want to discuss. Jpers36 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems borderline, I guess. It doesn't seem that noticable, and I guess (like some other bands) it would be very easy to take these lyrics as whatever you interpret them as. I mean, most of them aren't at all explicitly Christian, they could mean a number of different things. I've seen Christian imagery used by bands full of atheists, and there are plenty of times when things get mistaken for religious statements or purposely religious lyrics when they're really just lyrics. That being said, if you really think they belong in there, go ahead. Also, FYI, this should have gone on a talk page for one of the articles.149.43.x.x 19:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How to be: Emo

Feel free to edit that first intro. Apparently I'm in too deep so 'outside' input would be great. Thanks. TIinPA

Thanks for the heads up, I've made a few changes too, and we ought to discuss them on Talk:How to be: Emo. -- 149.43.x.x 04:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

moving the discussion from the thrice board here

i think that you have a valid point, but that we're both spending too much time at each other's throats to sit down and discuss the issue. i apoligize for being condescending and escalating the situation when i should have backed off (we both appear to be confrontational). so...after reading the emo page, i'm realizing that i didn't necessarily do my homework, but that we both are making mistakes. i'm not familiar with emo's history, but at the same time i dont' think we can use a non-contemporary definition of something. emo has progressed (as the article makes clear) away from what it used to be. i agree that 15 years ago, i would have easily labeled thrice as emo (not like they existed then, but you take my point). however, recent trends have moved emo into a whiny, sap-driven genre that appeals more to adolescent girls than to hardcore fans. this may not be a complete shift for the genre, but with the word emo coming to be associated with acts like that, i hesitate to clump thrice in with bands like that. i'm trying to do them justice and i think that the current defintion of emo is not what thrice is. lyrically, they delve into issues that would never be discussed in mainstream emo and musically they have a complexity that also is not found in mainstream emo. sure, not all emo is mainstream, but if we attempt to use a non-mainstream definition, we risk confusion. now, as i said, i'm not 100% on what i'm talking about here, so some clarification on my user page would be much-appreciated IF we can escape the confrontationalism. Deutschebag17 06:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you refer to the differences between Emo (music) and Emo (slang), the latter of which I will suggest is helpful, albeit poorly written in my opinion and pretty much the product of generalization and some vague perception of a fashion trend. And that is exactly what characterizes this "whiney, sap-driven genre," although Emo_music#The_third_wave (like other sources I could dig up about emo) indicates that emo simply does not exist and that it's continued use (as a label for music or otherwise) is simply not indicative of proper use. I can't start a band and be a 30s big band, no matter how much we sound like one, no matter how much people want to call us one. The label screamo, which someone added, makes more sense, although that genre's definition (in my opinion) is alot more hazy. But that's another discussion, and as of yet, it makes a little more sense.

As for the Thrice article, maybe you misunderstood, but I don't consider them emo. Not because of the "contemporary definition" (meaning slang misuse) but because they simply don't fit the only definition - emotive hardcore of a particular style from the early 90s. Cheeser1 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

whoa, yeah, i misunderstood. i thought you were applying the emo label to thrice. perhaps i should go back and read the entire discussion instead of just your responses. whoops. and thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Deutschebag17 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinch Harmonic

Thank you. Cutting that list back down to size was long overdue.-Jefu 10:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang) links

Thank you for wanting to help with Emo (slang). Unfortunately, your contributions are inappropriate - the link you continue to add violates the policy WP:EL. Please refrain from continuing to add the link, because at this point that may constitute WP:Vandalism. Thank you. Cheeser1 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) (Originally posted at User_talk:Sushi-x)

You have no recollection of the history of emo culture/slang and this website. You also have no further rights on Wikipedia than I do, please stop interfering. Wikipedia would never grow if armchair vigilantes like yourself feed on power here all day long and kill new submissions. The link will continue to be added, report me all you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sushi-x (talk • contribs) 00:34, 2 May 2007.

Firstly, please sign your posts. Secondly, when a discussion starts on your userpage, leave it there. Third, what do you mean "recollection"? I believe you have misunderstood that word. Regardless, I will speak to the matter at hand: There is no reason for the link you continue to add. Read WP:EL; your link violates items 2, 8, and 10/11, and likely 1 and 3 as well -- refer to the section links to normally be avoided, and compare that to the section what to link. This isn't about "rights" or being a "vigilante," nor am I power tripping or "killing" your "submission." I suggest you read the policy and attempt to conform to it, and I further suggest that you refrain from attacking the character or good intentions of other users, as such actions violate WP:PA and WP:GF, respectively. Asking you to conform to policy is not systematic social oppression, as requests for conformity might often be. We are simply cleaning up links to pages that are neither necessary nor appropriate for this encyclopedia (that page has no merit, frankly, under any reasonable reading of WP:EL). If you continue to add the link, it will be removed and re-added until you violate the three revert rule (you're one edit away from violating it, see WP:3RR). Following policy is key to contributing positively to Wikipedia, and I hope you will continue to do so, but I would ask that you do not continue contribute negatively by adding what is an entirely inappropriate link. I would also suggest that you refrain from making personal attacks and reconsider your tone; besides your conduct in this matter, this edit, for example, has a highly inappropriate edit summary. Cheeser1 06:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Retarded man, retarded. I like how so say that I can break a revert rule, yet, you can go around destroying free speech and the entire fucking concept of "wiki" - amazing. There's my tone. EDIT: Judging by the below conversation, I see you have other issues regarding sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. EDIT 2: And hey, asshole douchebag, you reverted me first, so you'll hit the rule first. Please go relax in a cave somewhere. EDIT 3: yes, when an entry has a "citation needed" for "Chefs with experience preparing beef kidneys report that the hanger steak's aroma preserves a trace of kidney." - this paints a picture of some dick with nothing better to do than hand out "citation needed" comments all over the place. Jesus fucking Christ. I Enjoy Freedom 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding improperly signed comment was added by Sushi-x (talk • contribs).

At this point I have clearly pointed to policy regarding the link in question, and have undoubtedly demonstrated that it is inapprop riate. I would also like to refer you to the policy Wikipedia:Civility, as well as others I have previously referred you to: Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I ask that you refrain from discussing this matter with me until you are familiar with these policies, because your conduct appears to be inappropriate. I will not respond to unfounded personal attacks (that I am "destroying free speech" or that I am an "asshole douchebag"). If you'd like to revisit the link issue, please do so at Talk:Emo (slang), and please discuss this issue with me and with others in an appropriate and civil fashion, while deferring to the policy in question (WP:EL). Thank you. Cheeser1 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang)

"I'm glad we've established that emo is not the same as goth."

Then don't bring back information which has already been proven beyond doubt to be false on the talkpage before. - The Daddy 13:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, your sarcastic, uncontributive work on that article is not appreciated. Like I said, it's not the SAME, but the statements about goth are properly sourced and the you reverting my clean-up turns appropriate, well-sourced statements into utter nonsense with insufficient sources. You've violated the three revert rule, and I will be reporting you. Furthremore, you're seriously messing up an article that was starting to actually be well-sourced, tidy, and neutral. I don't appreciate the lack of sincerity, thought, and good-intentions you have. Cheeser1 03:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen, its been proven on the talkpage that emo is not the same as and did not come out of goth subculture. It came from American hardcore punk related movements, and the slang term is associated with skate punk events like Warped Tour. If you are too lazy, ignorant, to read through it or even try disprove the facts then that is YOUR problem not mine.

You seem to have a lack of understanding on Wikipedia policies (please learn how to count, if you're claiming to be a "mathematician") and really only seem to be content with acting snooty towards me here, when my edits have only been constructive; claiming my comment was "sarcastic". Also what is "neutral" about you blatantly deriding and pushing factual inaccuracies about the gothic and punk subcultures and its connection to emo, when its already been disproven?... compromising factual accuracy is messing up the article. If you actually read the changes, the last one was just reinserting the non-defamatory intro[1], the rest of your alleged "clean-up" was untouched. - The Daddy 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to minor influences of goth on emo are sourced. I'm glad you think you can "prove" something by repeatedly and firmly stating your opinion of such a thing on the Talk page, but you can't. Furthermore, your idea of a "non-defamatory" introduction is really an inaccurate one. "counterculture"? I don't think so. "comes from the word emotional"? Nope, comes from the words "emotional hardcore." let's try to be accurate here. "it is suggested that"? Those are weasel words if I ever saw any. "the culture continued to develop"? it's well documented, in Emo (music) for example, that there is a huge disconnect between early emo and later appropriations of the term. As for counting, you performed 3 reverts within 24 hours (one, two, three). Let me be the mathematician, you can stick to being a self-proclaimed "guru" of music. See how much credibility that buys you. Cheeser1 01:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no references at all, where even "minor" influences are cited by emo kids themselves stating gothic rock musicians and the subculture which is associated with it has influenced them. If there was an influence, these would exist; but they don't. The only so called references in existence are not reliable as they were derived from a false piece of information on Wikipedia itself from a while back, that somebody like you who doesnt seem to know a whole lot about alternative subcultures perpetuated in viol of WP:OR.

As far as this its "my opinion" garb, you're claiming here;

Its "my opinion" is it that not a single band associated with the term emo (slang) has played any of the goth subculture festivals such as Whitby Gothic Weekend, Wave-Gotik-Treffen, etc?

Its "my opinion" is it that gothic subculture is not related to American hardcore & skateboarding fashion?

Its "my opinion" is it that the most famous gothic rock journalist Mick Mercer makes not a single mention of the "emo (slang) subculture" or any of its associated bands in any of his writings or books on the goth subculture (not even "21st Century Goth").... no, these are what we call "facts", not "opinions".

And as for your counting skills, those 3 edits aren't exactly the same as one and other for a start, so they've not all full reverts, and its a max of 3 in a day... 3 itself is not a viol of WP:3RR (even though I did not even reach that) please learn the policy before you try to defame an editor, regards. - The Daddy 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen fella, your attitude is way out of line. First of all, read policy. WP:three revert rule states that any reverts, be they partial or full, are counted. Secondly, all of what you've just put forward as "your opinion" is in fact, exactly that. I'm glad you've come up with random examples, but you generating random examples is 100% original research, despite your self-conferred title of "music guru," you carry no authority and you have no place making assertions without reliable and accurate sources that explicitly state whatever it is you're trying to put into the article. I'm sorry if that part of Wikipeida policy escapes you, but I'm done discussing this with you; I shouldn't have to spell it out any further. Any additional nonconstructive comments you leave on my user page will be removed (although I'd like to think at some point that you'd start discussing this reasonably, or at least look up some sources for your "contributions" to that article). Cheeser1 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Liten fella yourself, your snidey little comments and psuedo-excuses for your lack of understanding of policy and deriding of perfectly good points I've brought up here, is out of line. I cited specific examples, and specific neutral media forums (such as "21st Century Goth" by noted goth writer Mick Mercer, and the large festivals Whitby Gothic Weekend and Wave-Gotik-Treffen).. I did not write the book which I am citing, I do not run those festivals, they, the most popular gothic subculture forums exist without anything at all to do with emo, independently from me. If you choose to wallow in self ignorance in regards to that, pretending the stating of those facts is some how in violation of "Wikipedia:No original research", then go for it... but your claim doesn't have a leg to stand on. - The Daddy 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And if you'd cited anything, I'd have cared. You did some google searches, alluded to some books that might exist but that you haven't cited, and went on a tirade against SwithChar. That's not proof. And in all this, the most insane part is where that little "proof" you gave was that emo was not related to goth OR PUNK (of which it is derivative). Pathetic. Don't comment here any more. Your over-opinionated, unsourced, inflamatory tripe is not helpful nor welcome on my userpage anymore. Cheeser1 05:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are you blanking my messages in reply to your statement? Because I proved you wrong and have shown you how I cited independent media for my facts? Vandalising my message in reply to your comment won't make the facts any less true, it just makes you look desperate. - The Daddy 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Because I told you that I wasn't interested in responding to your irrelevant and noncontributive comments. And for the record, once again, this is your "proof": Talk:Emo (slang)#Not related to gothic rock or punk rock. I don't think you've proven anything. Nothing there cites a reliable or appropriate source (yes, you know the names of some gothic festivals. wholly irrelevant). Keeping your irrelevant rambling off my userpage is not vandalism. In fact, I think you continuing to prod me and muck up my userpage with your meaningless accusations is closer to vandalism than anything else. I told you that unless you had something more to contribute to shut up. So shut up. Go talk on Talk:Emo (slang), if you think you've proven something, but you haven't. SwitchChar already put you in your place, I shouldn't have to again, especially when I told you I'm done with you and to stay off my talk page. Cheeser1 04:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, this is not your public debate space, this is my user discussion page. Unwelcome discussion is, well, unwelcome. Your continued prodding has led me to dissect your argument a bit further:

• Did some Google search? Do you have the fainted idea what you're talking about? Of course you don't. Clueless. Notice how Whitby Gothic Weekend[2] and Wave-Gotik-Treffen[3] have their own articles, on Wikipedia right? ... and it lists the bands that play, its not too difficult to go over there and read that not a single band associated with emo (slang) has ever played these two largest events in the gothic rock calender.

Anecdotal and irrelevant. This does not meet any burden of proof and cites no reliable source.

• Neither is it too difficult to visit the MickMercer.com page, read his book about goth subculture in the 21st Century and not find a single trace of anything to do with emo.

Wonderful. Tell me about how a page on goth is supposed to inform a page on emo. Early ska and reggae influenced 77-era punk. A history of reggae may not mention this because it's a history of reggae, not a history of punk. Again, you haven't given a proper citation, and you're allusion to a book is still irrelevant in content. And you aren't even citing the book - you cited the NAME of the author, and only now have you given us a REVIEW/AD for the book. This still isn't a reliable source, and even if the book were reliable, it's still irrelevant.

• Emo is not derived from punk, it is derived from DC hardcore of the 1980s; huge difference...

Except that hardcore is a type of punk, moron; it's a distinction that was only blurred in the late 90s; and even then, hardcore still has roots in punk. Gosh, it's too bad there isn't an obvious place for you to look and figure that out like... hardcore or something.

• why edit articles pertaining to things which you aren't familiar with, or refuse to research into?... it makes no sense.

Exactly. So stop doing it. And stop commenting here. You've been put in your place twice now. Until you have reliable sources to back up specific edits to the article, don't revert (wholesale or in part) the cleanups I made. I cleaned up the article to resemble a more-or-less well-written past version, and a minor comment about goth is not the issue here. I'm archiving this discussion to emphasize the fact that it is over. You haven't had anything constructive to contribute since the start, you have no sources or content to contribute to the article - you just wholesale revert cleanup and hard work that went into crafting and maintaining a good article, of which my edits are only part. Learn to contribute to Wikipedia before you tell us that you've "proven" something or that our hard work should just be reverted flippantly. Cheeser1 21:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Original message first posted in User_talk:Steevven1: Hi. I wanted to point you to Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. I've noticed that a couple of the images you've created for use on Wikipedia pages feature advertising for your website, in a manner that is dubious, if not apparently intentional. The images in question are (Image:Emo beat up chuck taylor all star converse.jpg) and (Image:A-ok sign.JPG). I first noticed the shoe one, and replaced it, and then discovered the other. I intend to modify and replace the second one as well. It seems to violate policy to have distracting or self-promotional content unnecessarily (and seemingly deliberately) in the background or elsewhere in images used on Wikipedia. You seem to be aware of policy, reflected in your editing of (Image:Emo). I'm not trying to be contentious or anything, just giving you a heads up. --Cheeser1 07:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. You can go ahead and replace them as you see necessary. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Album covers (from User_talk:ACA

You've removed album covers from at least one band's article - possibly more, I'm not going to search your contributions. Could you please point to the policy that states that they can't be used. I'm not saying you're wrong or that no such policy exists, and I'm certainly not looking for a conflict. Really, I'd just like to know where that policy is, for my reference and to read and understand it. Thanks. --Cheeser1 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the policy; thank you for assuming good faith. Feel free to contact me on AIM (ACAx1985) if you'd like! Have a great day ACA 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Scenes

Hey I noticed your work on the Emo page. There's a person at the drawing board trying to make a page on "scenes", which is basically slang for subculture (in case you weren't familiar with the term). You seem informed on the subject, so I was wondering if you wanted to help. I think this would clear up some conclusion on the Emo page as to what it is and what it isn't. So if you're interested, go drop him a line here: WP:DRAW#Scenes (Sociology).

By the way, I went to your talk page because I thought that some vandals might find it and screw around. Vandalism is so stupid. J-stan 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Please refrain from undoing accurate and verifiable information done in articles. You've already been banned for doing this. Please do not repeat your mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote4Pedro (talk • contribs)

What you added to the article has been reverted by several editors, and is unsourced, nonNPOV, and fairly wishy-washy. Please only add neutrally-worded, sourced facts to the article. I have never been banned, so please don't make things up or threaten me. I'm not intimidated, and it's not funny. In fact, it could get you banned for incivility (not to mention WP:3RR). --Cheeser1 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For reference: 1, 2, 3. --Cheeser1 18:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename of Emo (slang) and OR concerns

You added "pejorative" in your edit to Girlie men- do you have a source for this? Now, obviously what was said was pejorative and that word should certainly be in our little encyclopedia, but it is also obviously OR. You take your knowledge of this term, our Western-cultural proclivities for using all things feminine/gay as derogatory and you mix this with the fact of what was said and make a claim.

Now, would it be fair to send you searching for a source for this? This one is not that hard to find a source for, but lets put that aside - should you be required to find one? And does it have to be an academic source, or would a journalistic one be ok? What demands to we make of something that is obvious?

And to put my neck out, I would say that when it is a matter of using a dictionary-definition, we do not need a source (so we won't have to source "this Ford X is a car" either). According to the rules, of course, I should revert your edit. I am not arguing with this, I am asking you if you believe I should do this in this case, or if I should apply WP:IGNORE here as I am doing for now... Lundse 13:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you, wiki-stalking me? Maybe I should dig up all your edits until I find something to harass you about. That article has sourced examples of pejorative use in it already (I'm not the one saying it's pejorative, the sources are), and no examples are given of any use otherwise (you know, unlike in our debate, where the term "slang" is already sourced). A car is a car. That does not require a source. The fact that you think that this group of somewhat similar people constitutes a subculture trivially, without any proof, is highly dubious and such claims do require sources per WP:SYN. Saying that it's "obvious" or "trivial" does not make it so, and that's hardly a convincing way to argue against WP:RS. And it is an academic claim, a claim requiring a source of sociological merit. If I added a mathematical comment to the article Calculus I'd have to cite an academically credible source, because my claim would require academic substantiation. If I add the word pejorative to an article that's about a phrase that's already been documented to be pejorative, I don't need to add any sources, since that is not an academic claim and there are already sources supporting my edit in the article.

Furthermore, I can certainly make an edit to an article without being as careful about sources if there is consensus for that edit, as is the case in Girlie men (besides your objection for the sake of objecting), but not so with the controversial renaming of that article. Throw around WP:IGNORE all you'd like, but you can't use it to end-run around consensus or WP:RS. This is not simply my interpretation of policy, it's the interpretation that's had full support from comments on the administrator's noticeboard twice when people have misused it in the very article we're debating policy about. If you could use it, why couldn't I? I mean, I'll just ignore your use of IGNORE and delete the whole discussion maybe. I'll stop discussing policy and start talking about my favorite types of sandwiches. I mean, I get to ignore all the rules right?

If you think it's "more accurate" to say "subculture" why are there no substantial sources in the literature to support your claim? All you can find is a rambling gard student's paper that is of dubious publications status, dubious academic credibility, and doesn't even really support your conclusion (not as I read it). There is clearly a lack of sourcing for the term, and a lack of consensus for the move, and without a broad consensus for such a dubious unsourced claim, you simply don't get to have it your way. The article remains as-is when there is no consensus in content disputes, especially when the new content doesn't even meet WP:RS. That's just how it works. So I'll thank you to stop digging through my edit history. Try digging through WP:SYN instead. --Cheeser1 18:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will point you to WP:WIARM as well, which is an essay explaining why WP:IGNORE is not simply a trump card for you to throw around when it suits you - it even makes it clear that you should follow the spirit of the rules. Hence "a car is a car" need not be sourced, by the spirit of WP:RS, even if RS doesn't explicitly make exception for trivial or tautological statements - that doesn't mean the spirit of WP:RS doesn't require you to properly source a substantive claim like "emo is a subculture" - no matter how obvious you think it is, it's not trivial or tautological. --Cheeser1 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe - this was actually an attempt to get you to discuss when one could use WP:IGNORE. You would rather keep misrepresenting what I have said about it - so be it. I am sorry if it bothers you that I used an example of something you added, but I am actually more sorry that you cannot see the point of the example and argue from there.

If you do decide to continue this discussion, please keep the following in mind: I have never claimed WP:IGNORE is a trump card, that is your interpretation of what I am trying to do. Also, you should really reread what it is I have tried to explain about dictinoary definitions and how it becomes impossible to write anything if one does allow oneself to make simple inferences.

I am truly sorry you do not want to go into the car example, and that you cannot see how calling a four-wheeled transportation device from Ford a car is an inference. I do not see the "mucic/clothes/hairstyle/etc. to subculture" as signifigantly less obvious - and of course it is ok to disagree on this. But to completely refuse to discuss it and demand academic sources, and keep raising the bar on it is not productive. Oh, and of course the source supports my claim, it uses the words "emo subculture" lots of times, including the introduction - if this is not a source saying that "emo subculture" is a good way to describe the, well, subculture (sorry, but I don't think you ever even tried introducing another term), I don't know what is.

As for wiki-stalking - I was giving you an example of a good edit you made. Trying to make that into some kind of offence against you is not exactly assuming good faith... Lundse 20:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I found another source you can pick at: [[4]] which also uses the term "emo subculture" - but I suppose it would be OR to go from "this author uses the term as uproblematic" to "the term is in normal use as designating the... (lets call it group, shall we?)". Lundse 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

All of this boils down to the fact that calling something a subculture is not a trivial or simple inference. McDonald's workers wear the same clothes, listen to the same music all day, say the same things (would you like fries with that?), and have the same McDonald's-smile attitude about life. They don't constitute a subculture. Yes, it's my turn for exaggerated examples. Similar clothing, similar behavior, and similar musical tastes do not determine a subculture trivially. Such a claim is not a simple or trivial inference. Obviousness is not the issue - only the most trivial "inferences" can be made, like that a picture of a car is, in fact, a car. Judging a group of people to be a subculture is a weighty sociological claim - it requires a reliable source of sociological information (not a blog or even a journalistic source - journalists are not sources of sociological information, they are sources of news information). To be a reliable academic source, it must be accepted by its academic community, which means it must be written by a credible sociologist, peer-reviewed, and accepted for publication. This new source, like the old, is not published, has never been cited, and is of dubious merit - especially as it relates to your claim. It uses the term subculture exactly seven times. In one instance, it simply conjectures that shared musical tastes might create a subculture. The next three instances are used to actually argue against your claim in a footnote. The fifth refers passingly to "specialty or subculture magazines" as a class of magazine. The sixth mention is the one in question - it mentions "emo subculture" - out of the blue, without foundation or source. The conclusion that emo is a subculture is never established in this paper, and the term is used only once in passing, and referred to again in the seventh and final use of the term "subculture." And in all of this, it's talking about a far more specific group of emo people than what our article is about. This paper isn't even necessarily relevant. Digging up unpublished papers by grad students that casually use the term "emo subculture" once, in passing, does not constitute a reliable source to establish that emo is a subculture. I have read half a dozen full books analyzing gay culture. Books that are cited, accepted, and published in the academic field of sociology. That's why we get to call it gay (sub)culture, and not "gay (slang)." This isn't me picking over sources to destroy your otherwise worthy claim, it's me pointing out that you don't have any real sources for the claim. And that means it doesn't get included in Wikipedia, in accordance with what is arguably the most important policy. --22:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a simple point about WP:IGNORE. Read it carefully: If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it. That means you shouldn't be using it against anyone or anything except a technical policy roadblock that is keeping us from making consensus-based and source-supported changes to articles. WP:WIARM is an accepted and fair interpretation of what WP:IGNORE means, and consensus on the administrator's noticeboard supports the idea that ignoring all rules isn't a way to dodge WP:RS or to significantly change articles without consensus. --Cheeser1 22:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally have some understanding on the "inference discussion". We just don't agree (which is fine). I guess the basic difference is that I do not see subculture as necesarrily being a sociological classification requiring an academic source, as you seem to do. I see it more as simply a common word in use about a group of people who are similar on certain key cultural points (not geographically, workplace, family or similar other groupings, of course).

I still believe the two sources (and what we all "just know" about it) fits with my definition of a subculture - it just does not fit with yours. I initially balked at your arguments and demands because they seemed pedantic (as I assumed you demanded this kind of exactitude and adherence to rules to something which was trivial). Your good faith has become clearer - you argue and demand a standard which I did not initially think was even in the picture, and certainly non-trivial.

Your point on IGNORE vs RS are heard and understood, but that was well before I ever heard of you, emo or the article. I still do not need the lesson, I needed to know you understood that IGNORE does have its uses and that (trivial) inferences are necesarry. I think you do, even though we probably do not agree completely. Thats fine... Lundse 00:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As a final note, I'd point you to subculture. I'm glad this didn't end in a disagreement too severe. --Cheeser1 01:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Wikilawyering

First of all, thank you for explaining your concern in a calm, civilized manner. Let me explain myself using the gallery argument with emc. You stated things like "And I'll continue to wait for a reason, based on policy, to remove the gallery", "Until you cite policy, the gallery stays... I've continued, over and over and over, to try to get you to cite policy. That's all I've told you to do, because your "opinion," unless it's an interpretation of some specific policy, is irrelevant. You finally did cite policy... That policy says which we prefer. It doesn't say "never use sketches, caricatures, or pictures that aren't of entire people and their clothes." It certainly does not say "never ever use the word typical or you'll have to delete the whole gallery." As I read that policy, there's no reason to delete it", and a few other instances where you pressed and pressed the need to obey policy. I have nothing against policy - without it, wikipedia would basically be a reckless anarchy. Wikipedia:The role of policies in collaborative anarchy says that "Policies... provide the framework and a safe environment for a wiki community to function." I believe this should be taken that policies do not provide a stumbling block, they provide obstacles which change a course, but not so much that it becomes unpleasant to travel. You seem to force the need to abide by policy to an extent where it becomes necessary to follow WP:IAR to avoid a nervous breakdown. Again, abiding by policy is not wrong, but too much policy is stressful. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you fail to see that I am just as much "avoid[ing] a nervous breakdown" as the next guy. People come into an article, and out of nowhere delete content or try to move it to "subculture," despite having no reasons besides it being what they thing looks better. I can't convince them just by asking them to change their mind, so I cite policy, in order to avoid going insane trying to reason with people about what constitutes original research. Don't forget that most of policy is essentially a collaborative expression of a much broader consensus about what is and isn't supposed to be in these articles. --Cheeser1 22:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see. You're just trying to keep consensus around here. I just think that beating them with policies is the wrong approach. If someone came and just deleted material, I would warn them. I believe there actually is a warning, I just can't find it. By the way, I still don't understand WP:SYN. If you could explain it to me again, that would be great. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. WP:SYN is essentially a part of the OR policy that clears up some of the confusion about what is and isn't OR. Some people might argue "I have a source that says all ducks are blue and another source that says all blue animals eat bugs therefore I am allowed to conclude that all ducks eat bugs, even though there are no sources concluding that ducks eat bugs." Basically, it prevents Wikipedians from "synthesizing" existing research into new claims. According to the policy, these new claims constitute original research, even if they seem to follow logically from existing content in the article (or elsewhere). In this case, people have reliable sources that describe subcultures in a particular fashion, and other sources that seem to make "emo" qualify as a subculture, but there are no reliable sources making that leap to the conclusion that emo fits these qualifications and is thus a subculture. Without such a source, we cannot add such a conclusion to the article. --Cheeser1 01:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now. Thanks! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo

Please do not revert my edits at Emo (slang). I added a see-also-section because it is important for both the ones-that-believe-that-emo-is-a-subculture and their opponents, indeed such section provide any reader with a sort of introduction to the wide and loose topic of "youth movements, countercultures and subcultures". See-also-sections are meant to give the reader the broadest picture of the topic, its analogies and its differences with other topics and are usually very different from "refernces" sections.Doktor Who 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please respect the guidelines I've asked you to follow. There is already lengthy discussion of this topic at Talk:Emo (slang). Don't come here to try to refute me as if I'm a noob or a vandal needing to know the definition of "see also." The see-also topics you added are a broad spectrum of sociological terminology, but no sociological data is present in the article (save that which is added in violation of WP:SYN). Until this is an article that is reliably known to be a subculture of any sort, linking to those sorts of categories and articles is inappropriate. Emo is not a culture, counterculture, or youth movement (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) until a reliable source says it is. --Cheeser1 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And keep in mind that boldly adding such content should not be re-added to the article, according to policy, until consensus is formed to do so (which may be hard, given that there are no sources to justify all of those see-also links in any way). --Cheeser1 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just few words. I'm not a noobie. I'm not young. I am not a troll. I like the scientific method, and science is my main interest. I dislike the word emo, the emo world and its slang. I don't think that a music genre named "emo" exists. Adding some more links can support this perspective, I'm not against you, you are misunderstanding me. This word emo is just one of those words invented by some pèress in order to create a commercial slogan, and sell music, magazines, and so on. ^_^ cheers.Doktor Who 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take the time to read my comments carefully. I never said anything about youth or trolling. I also never alleged that you were a noob. To the contrary, I pointed out that coming to me instead of discussing it on the article's talk page (like you're supposed to), insinuates that I am somehow a vandal. It seems clear that your perspective on this article is colored by your personal issues with emo music and emo things. Trying to lead people to unrelated or irrelevant topics is not what the see-also section is for, especially if you're doing it to support some ludicrous agenda or perspective you have about how emo doesn't exist. --Cheeser1 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating you are a vandal, just I suspect that, since you have never seen me before at this article, you were somewhat regarding me as a noobie. I have no "agenda", but, unlike you, I want to give other readers the chance to seek more info on simiilar, related and unrelated topics. Please note that I've smiled to you, if you do not stop your aggressive tone, I will report you for violating WP:OWN and WP:HAR.Doktor Who 00:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Unrelated topics? Since when is the "see also" section supposed to contain unrelated topics? I have not violated OWN or HAR, and you can't go off and report everyone who disagrees with you on content disputes (especially when I've made it plain that my only interest is following the relevant policies). Smilie faces are not a panacea, and the fact that I don't use them is not indicting. Good day. --Cheeser1 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang)

Hi Cheeser, I've written a comment on the emo talk page. Please respond. Thanks. Cedars 10:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to comment here. I will respond in due time on the page without such a notification. Thanks. --Cheeser1 12:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Emo

Sorry. I thought I saw the real discussion. I only saw an old one. I undid what my restore, but you may have beaten me to it. DCDuring 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it was an honest mistake. --Cheeser1 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Emo

Hi Cheeser,

I am planning to remove the stereotype paragraph from the fashion section. First, I have a problem with the notion that the stereotype is associated with the fashion. Second, I take issue with the credibility of the source for that paragraph. I know you have very high standards when it comes to the sources, so I hope you can understand where I am coming from. Please feel free to buzz me on my talk page.

Cedars 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I think the decision to merge the content of the emo (slang) article with the emo (music) article was a mistake. While the emo (music) was a long way from perfect it was a far better article than the emo (slang) one. If we are going to stick content into emo (music) from emo (slang), I would like to see it be much more insightful and (ideally) better sourced than that the content in the emo (slang) article. Send me your thoughts.

Cedars 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: the section is not properly sourced, so it has been removed. When you find a better one, you can add it back in. Until then, you can't add a section and use an unreliable source to support it while waiting to find a better one. If it's not properly sourced, he has every right to remove it. Gscshoyru 04:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting reading of policy, considering WP:BRD. Please follow all policy and take the time to establish consensus BEFORE re-adding your bold edits. --Cheeser1 04:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm a different person from the other guy. Second of all, BRD isn't policy. Third of all, even if it was policy, it violates WP:RS and WP:V, which is a more importat policy, so should be removed. Fourth of all, watch the WP:3RR. Gscshoyru 04:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. BRD is an explanation of the community-accepted understanding of how WP:CONS (a policy) operates in practice. Since you have no interest in stopping edit warring, I'm just going to ignore you. Uncontested material that needs a better source does '''not''' have to be removed. That's why that have things like this: . Duh. --Cheeser1 04:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, true, fine. It's just that it is in his right to remove the content, because it isn't properly sourced. I saw what you were doing and overreacted a teensy bit. Put it back, put the citation needed tag. But I'd go find a better source if I were you, or he'll just remove it again. Gscshoyru 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been like 20 minutes since I undid his revert-of-a-revert. I don't work for Wikipedia, I have better things to do, and I'll get around to it. --Cheeser1 04:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Very few editors "work for" wikipedia. If you want the content in you will have to find the source... that's how wikipedia works. But I'll put it back for now. Sorry about being a bit peculiar. Not entirely sure why I was jumping down your throat. Gscshoyru 04:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

My point was that I don't work for Wikipedia, so there's really no reason for me to make doing research for Wikipedia a priority when I have real jobs and real work I have to do. --Cheeser1 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have to put it back or you'll violate the 3RR. And I will, as long as you promise to find a better source, ok? Gscshoyru 04:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Emo again

I'm sorry "EMO cult warning for parents" is not an acceptable source for this article unless you want to discuss how emo is being misportrayed in the media. An article on a gig isn't that much better and the opinion pages of a student newspaper are also not always appropriate. I am slightly peturbed that you spent pages and pages deriding our sources for the emo (slang) article, yet these are the sort of sources you are now using. It feels like you have a set view in your mind about what the article should read and rather than arguing about it from a reasoned point of view, you instead want to find as many policies as possible that might help you out and misapply them to get your own way. That said, I think we can find the middle ground on this - some of what I think you want to say would be supported by the sources we wrote down on the emo (slang) talk page. I also think there is a lot of room for improvement in the non-musical part of the article, so it shouldn't be difficult to find better content. Send me your thoughts and let's make the emo article the best it can be. Cedars 14:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't know if you've read the paragraph you keep deleting but "It is also associated with..." - clearly not an analytical or precise statement about any link. Also, your beef with one source doesn't address the others that are in that paragraph. Also, please don't drag old arguments into new ones. My arguments in the other page were in a completely different context, and were related to a highly analytical claim that had no reliable/authoritative sourcing. This is a totally different issue. I would appreciate it if you didn't confound the two issues in order to make some pretty stupid accusations about me trying to push POVs or seize control of article content. I know the difference between an analytical claim and a nonanalytical one - the fact that my standards for sources differs from one to the other is in line with WP:RS, and is certainly not grounds for such accusations. --Cheeser1 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have deleted my previous comments. I, along with a whole heap of other Wikipedians, have tried to reach a reasonable conclusion (see above comments from Gscshoyru and talk at Talk:Emo (slang)) but you have completely stonewalled us. Please let me know if you want to try again at reaching a reasonable compromise. Cedars 16:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Stonewalled? The only other person involved in this discussion (Gscshoyru) was perfectly happy with the statement, given that that two-sentence paragraph now has five independent sources. What more do you want? --Cheeser1 17:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Chris Head

CSD G4 does not apply to articles which have been speedy deleted. I was not able to find any deletion discussions for that article, so I was wondering why you placed that tag on the page? --Nn123645 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. I'll remove the tag, but I'm speedy-N'ing it. This guy is in no way notable outside his participation in the band. He's been speedied several times on this grounds (I don't see where this "all previous versions were vandalism" claim comes from). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Emo (slang)

Remember the good old days? :) I've found a published university paper on the "Youth culture" of Emo. I'd like you to take a look at it, and see your opinion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

That was discussed, at length, already. That short paper is in a book that has 0 scholarly citations, is not available for purchase anywhere that I can find online, and is not available in any library I can find. All of this, and lengthy discussions, have been hashed out on the talk page already. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion the first time through? --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Where, I couldn't find the discussion. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the first mention on the threads still at Talk:Emo (slang) was under the heading "Culture?" I'm not sure if it was mentioned in any of the discussion that is now archived, but it wouldn't surprise me. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)